Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202417344)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417344

Yorkshire Housing Limited

15 April 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:
    1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under agreement dated January 2021, living in a ground floor flat with her partner. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident reported a noise disturbance from her neighbour in March 2022, which was closed in July 2022. She reported a new ASB incident 7 months later, on 15 February 2023.
  3. On 5 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said the ASB had been ongoing for 2 years and had not been resolved. It was impacting her wellbeing and although she thought the landlord was taking enforcement action, she had not heard anything further. She wanted her neighbour moved.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 September 2023 and on 18 September said it will need more time to respond. On 26 September, it provided its stage 1 response. It said:
    1. it investigated the ASB and acted, but it should have responded quicker.
    2. it confirmed the neighbour had been served a final housing caution and the next step would be legal action.
    3. it had a new contact for her and arranged to call on 28 September to discuss plans moving forward.
    4. it offered a £50 Love2Shop voucher for the inconvenience caused.
  5. On 16 February 2024, the resident asked for a stage 2 response. On 21 February the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a stage 2 response. She said on 25 February that the landlord had not updated her and not taken further action, such as an injunction and a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).
  6. On 28 March, the landlord said it needed an extension before it can respond. It provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. It said:
    1. it did not keep her updated about the ASB investigation and actions.
    2. it offered her a tenancy coach to provide support and link in with services, whilst it investigates the ASB.
    3. it explained its experience with similar situations meant it was unlikely an injunction would be successful, and instead, would move forward with possession action.
    4. it will continue to consider legal action, if it finds there’s a strong case.
    5. it ordered her a ring doorbell, apologised it had not kept her updated throughout her reports of ASB, it provided feedback internally, and offered £100 due to the lack of communication.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

  1. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 31 July 2024 as she wanted her neighbour moved and the ASB resolved. The landlord issued the neighbour a NOSP on 26 November that’s in place for 12 months. And, if there are ongoing reports and evidence of ASB, it may start possession proceedings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received and whether it followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord has a 4-stage approach to ASB. Its policies say:
    1. within 5 working days it will interview the resident, agree a plan of action, and frequency of contact.
    2. within a further 5 working days, it will interview the alleged perpetrator.
    3. it will consider any safeguarding risks for the parties involved.
    4. it will contact the resident at least fortnightly to assess and evaluate the case and any further incidents.
    5. it will gather evidence using incident diaries, interviews, sound recordings, professional witnessing, and evidence from other agencies, like the police.
    6. it will consider actions such as mediation, a warning letter and caution, a Good Neighbour Agreement, partner agency intervention (such as support from health services), and tenancy enforcement legal action.
    7. it will close the case if there are no further incidents within 6 weeks and will explain what the outcome is, and what to do if there are further incidents.
    8. if the ASB report reaches stage 4, it will begin legal action, keep in contact with the resident, and continue to gather evidence and investigate incidents.
  3. The resident reported a new ASB incident on 15 February 2023, the resident said her neighbour caused noise disturbance, had thrown liquid at her door, and her door had been kicked. The landlord arranged an interview on 20 February. This was reasonable and in line with its policy to interview her within 5 working days.
  4. During the interview with the resident, it was decided she will keep an incident diary and report noise using its noise app. She also agreed to mediation and was prepared to be a court witness. This was reasonable and in line with its policies to understand what actions she can take, consider ways the problem could be resolved, and gather evidence about the ASB.
  5. There is no evidence to show a safeguarding risk assessment was completed for the resident. In completing risk assessments and focussing upon harm caused, it could have considered what measures may be appropriate to put in place at the earliest opportunity. This was unreasonable and not in line with recommendations made in the Communities and Local Government guidance ‘Tackling antisocial behaviour: tools and powers – toolkit for social landlords’.
  6. The resident and landlord updated each other on 2, 9, and 24 March, where she said issues were ongoing, and she was keeping an incident diary. It was reasonable and in line with policy for the landlord to update the resident at least every two weeks and encourage the use of the diary to gather evidence.
  7. From 29 March and throughout its investigation, the landlord attempted a multi-agency approach to understand the situation with the neighbour and ways to address the ASB. This was fair and in line with its policies.
  8. On 25 April, the resident confirmed there had been no further incidents for several weeks. There was no update to the resident from 24 March until 25 April, which was outside of its commitment to update her every two weeks. This was not reasonable and not in line with its policies. It was likely to have left her without assurance her ASB report was under investigation.
  9. The landlord attempted to visit the neighbour with an external agency on 11 May 2023. The time taken to attempt interview was not in line with its policy. Although, as part of its multi-agency approach, it was told information about the neighbour’s circumstances and discussed ways to approach them. This was a mitigating factor in its attempts to interview, as it had new information to better understand ways to engage with the neighbour. This was reasonable and in line with its policies.
  10. On 8 June and 12 July, the resident confirmed there had been no further incidents for several weeks, but did not want the case closed. Although there was no detriment to the resident, the length of time she waited for an update was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
  11. The landlord could have closed the ASB report at this time, considering there had been no further reports of ASB for more than six weeks. It was fair and reasonable that it made the discretionary decision to keep the case open and confirmed it would next contact her in 3 weeks.
  12. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 August 2023 as it had agreed. She confirmed further ASB from her neighbour and wanted to understand if it had sent a final housing caution letter to them. It said it will investigate this. It was appropriate to update her about its plans to address the ASB.
  13. The resident reported ASB from her neighbour 5 times between 16 August and 27 September and, in that time, made her complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an action plan of how it intended to address the ASB. That it did not was unreasonable and failed to manage her expectations.
  14. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 September and explained she had a new contact for her ongoing ASB reports. It confirmed what action it had taken, such as a final housing caution sent to the neighbour, and the importance that she continued to log relevant incidents. Although there was a gap in the landlords update to her about what actions it was taking in response to the ASB, it was fair it eventually did so.
  15. The landlord visited the resident on 16 October, where the final housing caution was discussed, and it gathered evidence about the ASB. It said it will contact her about the next steps. It visited again on 23 October. This was reasonable and in line with its commitment to contact every two weeks.
  16. The landlord attempted to visit the neighbour again on 23 October and at least a further 5 times throughout the rest of its investigation. This included different ways to engage them, by both arranging to visit, as well as turning up without appointment. It was fair and in line with its policies to continue to attempt and contact the neighbour about the ASB reports.
  17. The landlord visited the resident on 14 November and 4 December. It updated her and on 4 December confirmed it was following legal steps to serve an injunction to her neighbour. This was fair to update her about what action it planned to take.
  18. On 18 December, the resident told the landlord her neighbour had been arrested, and it followed this up with the police. This was fair to understand the changing situation and how it may impact what actions it could take.
  19. The landlord updated the resident about actions it was taking 5 times between 22 December and 24 January 2024. In January, it confirmed that considering the changing circumstances, it would no longer move forward with an injunction. Instead, it would serve the neighbour a NOSP. It was fair that it kept the resident updated about its actions regarding the ASB.
  20. In January 2024, the landlord continued a multi-agency approach and worked with them to address any wider concerns and the neighbours ASB. This was reasonable and in line with its policies.
  21. The landlord continued to update the resident six times between 10 February, and 19 April 2024. In that time, it explained it was establishing information about the neighbour and the appropriate actions it could take, including serving a NOSP. This was appropriate and in line with its policies to update the resident about how it planned to address the ASB.
  22. The landlord issued its final response on 24 April 2024 about the resident’s complaint regarding the ASB. And it since issued a NOSP to the neighbour on 26 November. It updated the resident about this on 27 November and made her aware it’s important to still provide incident updates.
  23. From the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses, it recognised it should have replied to the ASB sooner as well as regularly update the resident. It had:
    1. apologised and offered a £50 Love2Shop voucher at stage 1 for the inconvenience caused from its delay and lack of updates about the ASB.
    2. provided a ring doorbell at stage 2 and explained why it changed its approach to the ASB from an injunction to a NOSP served to the neighbour.
    3. offered £100 compensation at stage 2, to recognise it had not regularly kept her updated since stage 1.
    4. learnt lessons at stage 1 and 2 about the lack of updates and put in place a new person each time to update the resident regularly.
    5. it provided feedback internally that residents are contacted when agreed and updated about all ASB incidents raised.
  24. The landlord’s comments and actions from the stage 1 and 2 responses can be said to have put some things right for the resident, but it failed to recognise that it did not carry out a risk assessment for all parties at the start of the ASB and at significant milestones.
  25. We would have found there to be a service failure for the lack of risk assessment. However, the landlord’s responses clearly recognised lessons learnt, apologised for the inconvenience caused, offered redress, and updated its plan of action in attempt to resolve the ASB. Considering its overall responses and compensation, as well as our remedies guidance, we find it has offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves the complaint. 
  26. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its policy about completing and recording risk assessments as part of its ASB procedures.

The resident’s complaint

  1. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised her complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
    1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
    2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date it acknowledged it.
      1. if an extension is needed, it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
    3. if the resident requests a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
      1. if an extension is needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
      2. if it needs longer than a 10-working day extension, both parties should agree it.
  1. The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.
  2. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 5 September 2023 and so it had until 12 September to acknowledge it.
  3. On 8 September it acknowledged the complaint, and told the resident a stage 1 response will be provided in 10 working days. It had until 22 September.
  4. On 19 September, it said it needed a further 5 working days to gather information, before it can respond to the complaint. It provided the stage 1 complaint on 26 September. This was reasonable and in line with the code.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 February 2024. It acknowledged this on 21 February, and sent a letter on 1 March that it will take 20 working days to respond. She could expect a response by 29 March. This was within the overall time it had to respond, including a 10-day extension. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
  6. On 28 March, the landlord confirmed to the resident it needed an extension due to further information received. It provided the final response on 24 April 2024.
  7. In summary, the landlord provided its stage 1 and stage 2 responses in line with the Code and its policies. Therefore, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the ASB. It offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to the investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord:
    1. makes the payment to the resident of £100, sends her a £50 voucher, and installs the ring doorbell, if it has not done so already.
  2. It is also recommended the landlord:
    1. completes a review of its risk assessments policies, including that these are fulfilled at the start of an ASB report, completed at key milestones, and to clearly record risk assessments on future ASB reports.