Cross Keys Homes Limited (202413160)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413160

Cross Keys Homes Limited

28 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by and about the resident.
2. the landlord’s decision to undertake tenancy enforcement action.
The Ombudsman has also considered the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the house with her husband and children.
Both the resident and her neighbour have reported ASB to the landlord, with allegations against each other dating back to 2020.
The resident previously complained to the landlord on 29 June 2023 about its handling of her ASB reports. The resident received the landlord’s stage 1 response to her complaint on 4 July 2023, and actions were agreed between the resident and the landlord in order to address any ongoing issues, should they arise.
Following the resident’s previous complaint, there was a period during which no further incidents were reported, until the resident reported ASB from her neighbour on 15 January 2024, and 26 January 2024. Further incidents between the resident and her neighbour were reported by either the resident or her neighbour throughout April and May 2024. The landlord opened an ASB case on 20 May 2024.
On 24 May 2024, a physical altercation took place at the property involving the resident, her neighbour and her neighbour’s mother. Police attended and arrested all three parties. On 4 June 2024, police confirmed to the landlord that the neighbour and her mother had been charged and bailed to court for common assault against the resident.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2024 and 5 June 2024. She said that she had been experiencing ASB for 4 years from her neighbour, and had no support from the landlord. She said that the landlord was due to carry out a home visit to discuss recent matters on 4 June 2024, but had double booked and asked the resident to attend at the office instead, which was particularly difficult with a baby and toddler, and in light of the fact that the resident did not drive.
The landlord responded on the 5 June 2024 and again on 30 June 2024, to confirm that it would not consider the resident’s complaint as it was planning to issue enforcement proceedings against both the resident and her neighbour.
On 1 July 2024, the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on the resident and her neighbour.
The resident approached the Ombudsman, concerned that she was being evicted. She told the Ombudsman that the police had charged her neighbour and that no charges were being brought against the resident in relation to the incident on 24 May 2024. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 15 August 2024, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint about her concerns about the landlord’s decision to take enforcement action.
On 2 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that having reviewed the footage of the incident on 24 May 2024, it believed that the behaviour demonstrated by the resident was unacceptable and in breach of her tenancy agreement. It explained that on this basis, its legal team had been instructed to begin proceedings against her, but that subsequently, the resident had been offered an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). The landlord confirmed that if the resident complied with the ABC, it would not take action at court to evict her.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she was unhappy that she was being portrayed as the guilty party, when the police had charged her neighbour, but no charges were being brought against her. She said that she did not start the fight and that she felt that the landlord was only hearing the neighbour’s side of events. She noted that when she had approached the landlord after the incident, she had been told that she would have her “say in court”. She said that her neighbour continued to park inconsiderately and point her CCTV cameras at the resident’s home. She noted that the ongoing issues had affected her mental health and also made allegations about the resident claiming benefits fraudulently and smoking illegal substances meaning she could not open her windows.
A stage 2 meeting was held between the landlord and resident on 24 September 2024 and the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 2 October 2024. In the response, the landlord confirmed that the resident had not been accused by the landlord of starting the fight on 24 May 2024. It acknowledged that prior to the physical altercation, the footage showed the resident’s neighbour and her mother being verbally abusive to the resident on the resident’s doorstep. The landlord acknowledged the situation must have been distressing for the resident, but the landlord’s view was that the behaviour evident in the footage could not be excused, despite the acknowledged provocation. It confirmed that it would review the placement of the neighbour’s CCTV cameras, and appoint a new contact within the ASB team to liaise with the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She told the Ombudsman that the ASB was ongoing and that she felt that the landlord had not adequately addressed it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB being reported by the resident and her neighbour, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports in the 12 months prior to her complaint on 5 June 2024, until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 October 2024. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords, and with this Service, in a timely manner, so that issues can be considered while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour by and about the resident

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy is dated 2023, and was in effect at the time of the events which are the subject of the complaint.
The landlord’s policy states that it can accept a report of ASB in writing, in person, via online reporting or email and an investigation must begin within 5 working days. After a 2 week restorative period, if issues persist, the landlord’s policy states an action plan must be agreed with the complainant and a diary pack or Noise App access should be provided. If the complainant does not wish to complete diary sheets, alternative forms of evidence such as emails can be agreed to ensure that an evidential log of incidents is kept.
The policy states that investigation should be conducted by contacting both parties and advising parties of allegations against them and giving them an opportunity to respond. Tenants should also be asked about any additional support required.
The landlord’s policy states that all contact should be logged, and that if initial contact fails to curb the behaviour, other early interventions may be used. Suggestions include referral to tenancy sustainment services, GP, mediation, or use of ABCs.
The policy states that where early intervention fails to curb the ASB, the landlord may need to consider taking enforcement actions to safeguard individuals and communities. These measures include civil injunctions, and possession proceedings, and working with the police to obtain a criminal behaviour order.
The resident previously raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports on 29 June 2023, and the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 4 July 2023. The landlord’s records show that following discussion with the landlord, the resident accepted the landlord’s stage 1 response, and the complaint was not escalated to stage 2. The landlord confirmed that it would keep the ASB case open and would challenge any nuisance experienced by the resident where it had evidence to support the claims. It asked the resident to supply CCTV, Noise App evidence, and any other evidence available to support the case. It offered support to the resident to set up the Noise App and show her how to send evidence to the landlord, but there is no evidence that the resident responded to this offer.
Following the stage 1 response in July 2023, the landlord’s records show that there were no further reports of ASB by the resident or her neighbour until the following year. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the matter had been resolved and there were no further ASB issues between the parties during this period.
On 15 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report ASB from the neighbour, in the form of verbal abuse in front of her children. The resident said it was affecting her mental health, and she was worried to go out of her property.
The landlord’s records show that a visit was made to the property by the landlord, but the resident refused to speak to the landlord’s employee. An email was also sent to the resident to request details and evidence of any recent issues. There is no record of a response to this email from the resident.
This was appropriate action by the landlord, in order to obtain information about the case and determine any necessary actions in line with its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord again by telephone on 26 January 2024, stating that the neighbour had thrown rubbish into her garden. She reported having CCTV evidence and asked to speak to a member of the ASB team. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord by email, stating that the neighbour’s children were swearing at her, the neighbour’s partner had thrown rubbish at her property, and the neighbour’s dog fouled all over the neighbour’s front garden.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord contacted the resident the same day and discussed the reported matters in detail. The landlord suggested a visit could be made by the landlord to the neighbour, to discuss the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord’s notes show that the landlord reviewed the information provided by the resident and discussed the matter within the ASB team. The ASB team concluded that the behaviour complained of did not meet the ASB threshold at that stage, and that the landlord required further evidence in order to take any action other than speaking with the neighbour. This information was relayed to the resident appropriately and an action plan was appropriately agreed with the resident on 29 January 2024.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 20 May 2024 following reports by the resident’s neighbour to the landlord and police. The landlord spoke with the resident on 22 May 2024 and agreed that it would visit the resident on 4 June 2024 to discuss the matter further. There was further contact between the landlord and the resident on 23 May 2024 and 24 May 2024, where the resident reported further ASB. Matters escalated to the point that there was a verbal and physical altercation between the resident and her neighbour on 24 May 2024.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a visit to obtain further information from the resident. This was in line with its policy which stated that the landlord should discuss allegations with both parties and give them an opportunity to respond. When the landlord opened an ASB case on 20 May 2024, it arranged an appointment to visit the resident on 4 June 2024.
The landlord’s ASB policy says the landlord will agree an action plan in every case and be clear about the actions it can take. There is evidence that in spite of its belief that the case did not yet meet the ASB threshold in January 2024, the landlord agreed a plan of action with the resident on 29 January 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s policy also says it will complete a risk assessment in all cases. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord did not act in accordance with this requirement. Within the records available, a retrospective risk assessment dated 5 February 2025 has been provided. There is no evidence that a risk assessment was completed on any occasion during 2024 when either the resident or the neighbour contacted the landlord to report ASB. This was inappropriate, particularly in light of the previous history of ASB reports by both the resident and her neighbour, and the fact that the resident had reported that the issues were affecting her mental health.
It is not possible for this Service to prove any causal link between the failure to complete a risk assessment, and the escalation of matters between the resident and her neighbour which occurred on 24 May 2024. However, there is evidence of service failure, in that the landlord did not take this step in accordance with its relevant policy until February 2025. There is evidence that the resident notified the landlord on several occasions during this period that the issues with her neighbour were affecting her mental health. She also subsequently informed the landlord that one of her children, who was later accused of swearing at the neighbour, had special educational needs and was undergoing assessment. These were relevant factors which would have been considered as part of a risk assessment and could have led to additional support being offered to the resident at an earlier stage.
Following a verbal and physical altercation between the resident and her neighbour on 24 May 2024, the landlord served a NOSP and subsequently offered ABCs to the resident and her neighbour as an alternative to eviction. This was appropriate action by the landlord, using the tools available under its policy to address serious ASB. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord has subsequently continued to liaise appropriately with both parties in the case, recording and responding appropriately to ASB reports made by the parties, and has considered and employed a range of options in order to permanently resolve the issues between the parties.
The landlord also showed it engaged with the police in relation to the incidents which were being reported by the resident and her neighbour, and liaised appropriately with the resident’s social prescriber. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
Overall, the landlord showed it took a number of appropriate steps in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It liaised effectively with partner agencies, and used appropriate tools to take action against both her neighbour and the resident for breach of tenancy. It also communicated clearly with the resident to ask her to provide evidence in order to support her reports of ASB, and there is evidence that incidents reported by both parties following the altercation on 24 May 2024 have been appropriately recorded and investigated. In the stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that the resident felt let down and offered a different staff member as a contact for future reports by the resident. It also noted her concerns regarding the placement and operation of her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, and offered to visit the neighbour’s property to review this. Evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman that both agreed actions were completed by the landlord.
The Ombudsman also recognises that in situations such as this, where both parties have made ASB reports, the handling of cases is more complex, as both parties need to be appropriately considered as potentially both victim and perpetrator.
However, the landlord was initially slow to assess the risk to the resident and the neighbour when it received an increasingly frequent number of ASB reports from the resident and her neighbour from January 2024 onwards. As the landlord failed to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of her ASB reports, it failed to acknowledge its delay in implementing this aspect of its policy, apologise, or offer any compensation.
Considering the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100, which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there is a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right.

The landlord’s decision to undertake tenancy enforcement action

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants must not commit any acts or threats of violence or use abusive or threatening language or behaviour towards any person residing, working or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in the tenant’s home and/or the locality of their home.
Ground 12 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 specifies situations where any obligation of the tenancy (other than one relating to the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed, this can be a ground upon which the landlord may seek possession.
Ground 14 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 specifies that where a tenant has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance, or has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of the property, the landlord may seek possession.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that applying for possession proceedings is one of several enforcement actions open to the landlord when dealing with ASB.
It is not disputed that an altercation took place between the resident, her neighbour, and her neighbour’s mother on 24 May 2024.
The landlord stated that its decision to serve the resident with a NOSP was based upon that incident.
In considering the landlord’s decision to undertake tenancy enforcement action, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether criminal activity occurred on 24 May 2024. Rather, it is the role of the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s decision making, and whether it applied its powers under legislation, the tenancy agreement, and its own policies appropriately in making its decision.
CCTV footage of the incident was provided to the landlord, and the landlord confirmed that the footage was reviewed. Having reviewed the footage of the incident, the landlord issued both the resident and her neighbour with a NOSP.
The resident has asserted that a lack of police action against her in relation to the incident on 24 May 2024 indicates that the landlord was unreasonable in serving her with the NOSP. However, the burden of proof in criminal matters (as investigated by the police) is significantly higher than in civil matters (as would be dealt with by the landlord) – being “beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to “on the balance of probabilities”. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident’s behaviour amounted to a breach of her tenancy, even if the police did not conclude that her behaviour should result in a criminal charge.
The Ombudsman notes that following receipt of the resident’s response to the NOSP, the landlord offered an Acceptable Behaviour Contract as an alternative to issuing possession proceedings. This was a reasonable action by the landlord, recognising the distress caused to the resident and her neighbour by the possibility of eviction. The Ombudsman has been informed that subsequently, ABCs were signed by both the resident and her neighbour.
In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord appropriately explained that in the landlord’s view, the resident and her neighbour were both in breach of their tenancy agreements and that on the basis of the evidence, the landlord had issued NOSPs to both parties. It further explained that the ABC had been offered as an alternative to eviction, and that in its view, this was a fair response to the situation. It appropriately acknowledged that this must have been a distressing time for the resident and noted that she had support from her GP and social prescriber.
This Service does not doubt that the landlord serving her with the NOSP caused the resident a high level of distress and concern about losing her home. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on its own assessment of the evidence available. The landlord’s communication with the resident around the incident and its action were clear. There is evidence that the landlord appropriately took legal advice on the issue, and that it took account of the resident’s response to the NOSP and offered an ABC as an alternative to possession proceedings. As such, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s decision to undertake enforcement action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
Under the Code, landlords are required to:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
3. Acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days.
4. Provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 20 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
Landlords are responsible for determining when a complaint may be excluded from its complaint process, and these reasons must be clearly set out in its complaints policy. The landlord must satisfy itself that it has acted fairly and reasonably.
As set out in section 2.2 of the Code, acceptable exclusions may include:
1. the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
2. legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, having been filed at court.
3. matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
Section 2.4 of the Code states ‘If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the exclusion has been fairly applied, the Ombudsman may tell the landlord to take on the complaint.’
The resident expressed a wish to raise a complaint about the handling of her ASB case during 2 telephone calls to the landlord on 31 May 2024. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s wish to complain was recognised and she was appropriately provided with details about the complaint process. The records show that the landlord appropriately contacted the resident by telephone on 4 June 2024 to clarify the elements of the complaint, but terminated the call. The landlord’s records state that this was due to being unable to make progress or obtain answers to its questions about the ASB reports or complaint during the call. On 5 June 2024, the resident sent details of her complaint by email, expressing dissatisfaction with the ASB team’s handling of her case.
The Code requires that a resident’s complaint be acknowledged within 5 working days. In this case, the landlord provided its response on 5 June 2024, in line with the time limit under the Code and its own complaints policy.
In its response, the landlord stated that due to the incident on 24 May 2024, discussed above, the landlord would be taking possession action against the resident. The landlord stated that in light of the fact that legal proceedings would shortly commence, the landlord would not be considering the resident’s complaint.
This was an inappropriate response from the landlord. Court proceedings had not yet been issued at that stage and therefore the exclusion permitted under the Code and the landlord’s policy did not apply. This meant that the landlord was obliged to consider the resident’s complaint, and its failure to do so was unreasonable.
In fact, the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) was not issued by the landlord to the resident until 1 July 2024, meaning the earliest point at which proceedings could have been issued was after expiry of the notice period, in mid July 2024. Ultimately, the landlord did not issue possession proceedings against the resident, yet there is no evidence that the landlord reconsidered its decision to refuse to investigate the resident’s complaint. This continued failure to investigate the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.
In addition, the Ombudsman notes that the email sent by the landlord to the resident on 5 June 2024 did not provide her with details of her right to take her complaint to the Ombudsman if she disagreed with the landlord’s decision to not accept her complaint. The failure to provide her with this information was inappropriate, and contrary to s2.4 of the Code.
The records show that the resident attempted to make further contact with the landlord by telephone, and the landlord confirmed by email on 30 June 2024 that it would not be sharing further information with the resident. The resident responded the same day to say she wanted to escalate the matter and would seek advice from the Ombudsman. Again, the landlord failed to provide her with information regarding how she could progress the matter if she disagreed with the decision not to accept the complaint. This was inappropriate.
The resident approached the Ombudsman regarding her complaint, and on 15 August 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request that it considered the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s eviction.
The landlord’s stage 1 response notes that the resident also wanted to raise concerns regarding the handling of her situation and the mental and physical distress this had caused her.
The landlord received the request from the Ombudsman on 15 August 2024 so should have provided its stage 1 response by 29 August 2024, within 10 working days. The resident was provided with a stage 1 response on 2 September 2024. This was a further short delay.
Furthermore, whilst the stage 1 response considered her complaint regarding enforcement action, it did not address her broader concerns regarding the handling of her ASB case which were raised in her complaints on 31 May 2024 and 5 June 2024. While the Ombudsman’s request did not reference the resident’s earlier complaint about the handling of her ASB reports, the landlord was aware of the resident’s complaints made on 31 May 2024 and 5 June 2024.
Section 6.8 of the Code states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage1 response has not been issued. In this case, the issues were clearly related, and the landlord should have recognised that it needed to deal with all of the complaint issues raised by the resident, including her complaint about its handling of her ASB reports prior to the incident on 24 May 2024, in accordance with section 6.7 of the Code. The landlord’s failure to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable.
Had the landlord considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint, it would have been entitled, under its policy, to limit its consideration to events following the resident’s complaint on 29 June 2023. This is because the landlord’s complaints policy expressly excludes matters which have been the subject of a previous complaint. However, the landlord was still obliged to explain this in its complaint response. Its failure to do so was therefore inappropriate.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 2 September 2024. The landlord offered a meeting to discuss the matter further and this was held on 24 September 2024. The stage 2 response was provided on 1 October 2024. While the stage 2 response was provided 21 working days after the resident requested escalation, this was not an unreasonable delay, in light of the fact that the landlord offered and arranged a meeting with the resident to discuss her concerns prior to issuing its response.
Overall, there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not recognise its complaint handling failures in either of its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses, and therefore made no attempt to put things right. The refusal by the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint, in the context of a longstanding ASB dispute where possession proceedings were being considered, had an adverse effect on the resident. She was unable to raise her concerns, and then when her complaint was belatedly investigated, the landlord failed to address all of the issues she had raised in her initial complaint. Extra time and effort were required to progress the complaint, and it was necessary for the resident to involve the Ombudsman in order to obtain a response.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the failures in its complaint handling and to pay compensation to the resident in the sum of £200 in recognition of these failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for awards where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to undertake staff training, to ensure its complaint handling staff are aware of the permitted reasons for refusing to accept a resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports by and about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to undertake tenancy enforcement action.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the following orders have been complied with:
1. An apology must be issued to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
2. Payment must be made to the resident the sum of £300 comprised of:
  1. £100 in respect of its handling of ASB reports by and about the resident.
  2. £200 in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord must complete complaints handling training with staff to ensure they understand the permitted reasons for excluding a resident’s complaint under its complaints policy.