Hyde Housing Association Limited (202309547)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309547

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident had a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy agreement, which ended in June 2024. The landlord is a housing association. He lived in a one-bedroom flat. The flat is in a medium rise block. The resident has agoraphobia, anxiety, and depression. The landlord recorded the resident had mental health issues, on its systems.
Between 20 November 2022 and 19 December 2022, the resident made 5 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour to the landlord. The issues related to noise nuisance, theft, threat of violence, and drug and alcohol use.
The resident reported the ASB issues to the local authority on 14 January 2023. He also said that the police had attended the block of flats in response to the reported ASB.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord called the resident to do an ASB interview. There was no answer, and it left a voicemail message.
The local authority emailed the resident on 19 January 2023, to acknowledge the reported ASB. It advised:
1. it would contact the police and the landlord to ensure this was being investigated.
2. the resident to report violent incidents to the police and make his landlord aware.
3. it would ask its environmental health team to contact him about the noise nuisance and investigate.
4. the environmental health team would provide diary sheets for the resident to complete and return.
The resident made further reports of ASB to the landlord on 19 January 2023, 9 February 2023 and 17 March 2023.
On 20 March 2023 the local authority confirmed to the landlord, that the police had received one complaint about theft at the block of flats. However, it was unable to take any action, as the resident had not returned the diary sheets.
The resident made further reports of ASB to the landlord on 23 May 2023, 17 July 2023, 29 August 2023, 23 October 2023, 1 December 2023 and 19 December 2023. He also had support from a local councillor, who contacted the landlord about the ASB issues on his behalf. The resident has repeatedly said he felt that the landlord took no action, and he felt ignored.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord’s records show it recognised the case had “drifted” for some time. There had been no contact with the alleged perpetrator. There was lots of information from the resident, but it had not taken any action, not sent warning letters and it had not done any enforcement action.
In January 2024 the landlord conducted a door knocking exercise at the block of flats. It said the resident’s neighbours did not report any issues of ASB. However, the resident reported further incidents of ASB on 13 March 2024 and 25 March 2024. Again, he said that the landlord did nothing and the issue had impacted on his health and wellbeing.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman, as he was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the reported ASB and wanted compensation for the effect it had on his health. On 12 April 2024 we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked for it to raise a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response letter, on 24 April 2024. It confirmed that it did not begin investigating the reported ASB until February 2023, nearly 3 months after the resident first reported it. It acknowledged it should have taken steps to investigate the resident’s concerns earlier. It said it was unsuccessful in meeting with the alleged perpetrator to discuss the accusations. It advised that it had contacted relevant parties and the police about the reported issues and enforcement action had begun against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £100 compensation for customer effort, £150 for delays, and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 3 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord, to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. He felt that the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the stress and worry he had suffered for years. He also wanted the landlord to clear his rent arrears and pay additional compensation, equal to 5 years of rent due. The landlord replied to the resident the same day. It advised that under its compensation policy it would not reimburse rent. And if the resident were only unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, it would not consider escalating his complaint.
The resident chased the landlord to confirm it had escalated the complaint to stage 2, on 22 May 2024. It sent its stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 24 May 2024.
On 17 June 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said that it had acted in line with its policies, but did not escalate the ASB reports to enforcement action quickly enough. It accepted the ASB had caused the resident disturbance, affected his quality of life and mental health. It said that while it did an initial risk assessment, it did not complete any follow up assessments. It did not do an information check, after receiving reports of the police attending the alleged perpetrator’s address. It concluded that it did not pursue robust enforcement action, or engage with the police or local authority, as part of a partnership approach to address the ASB issues. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £650 compensation, comprising £50 for complaint handling failures, £100 for customer effort, £200 for the delay and £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It advised that in line with its complaints policy, it was unable to award further compensation or clear the resident’s rent arrears.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. He said he would not accept the offer of compensation. He felt the landlord should have considered his reports of ASB before 2022. He said he felt neglected by the landlord, which had caused his mental health to deteriorate, and he had been forced to move home.
The landlord’s records show it closed the ASB case on 27 June 2024, which it said was due to the resident not cooperating.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The situation was clearly distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
This investigation focuses on specific matters arising from the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, from November 2022. This is when the resident reported the issue that gave rise to his complaint. This is because as the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord to address those matters.
The resident reported to the landlord, threats of violence from his neighbour. This is a matter for the police to investigate as a criminal matter and is not for us to determine. Our investigation is concerned with the actions taken by the landlord following receipt of the resident’s concerns, and whether this action was fair in the circumstances.
Throughout his complaint, the resident said that the ASB impacted his physical and mental health, and the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. He also requested compensation to reflect the impact of the reported ASB on his health, over several years. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, it is beyond our role to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. after receiving a report of ASB, it will complete the initial interview ensuring it takes as much detail as possible and record this on the ASB case. It will agree to an action plan with the person reporting the ASB and manage the expectations of this person.
2. its ASB officer will take reasonable steps to quickly gather evidence such as, witness statements, information from other agencies, diary sheets, CCTV (covert and overt), hearsay and noise monitors.
3. it should communicate with partner agencies, where the case officer is aware that other agencies are involved.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance, part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals’ states, that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed and shared with the complainant.
As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the resident’s case, including communication logs and records regarding its investigations into his concerns. While the landlord provided evidence, it did not provide some supporting evidence, such as the initial ASB risk assessment, or a referral made to its tenancy sustainment and enforcement team.
The resident first reported ASB on 19 November 2022, when he asked the landlord to evict his neighbour. Generally, a landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB, such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. This may also include evidence from the police. The landlord would be expected to investigate and seek corroborative evidence. Before taking formal action such as eviction, the landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally, by working alongside other agencies such as the police, and issuing tenancy warnings where appropriate.
After the resident’s first report of ASB, it was a further 38 working days until the landlord tried to contact him about the issue, on 17 January 2023. It sent its ASB acknowledgement letter a further 20 working days later. It is unclear what the reason for the delay in responding to the resident was.
The landlord received information from the local authority on 20 March 2023, about the reported ASB. However, there is no evidence to show that this resulted in it taking any action.
The resident had advised the landlord the ASB was impacting on his health before it opened an ASB case in February 2023. While the landlord said it completed an initial risk assessment, it has not provided this investigation with this document. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord adequately considered the resident’s concerns about the impact on his health.
The landlord has not provided record of its initial interview with the resident, and there is no indication that it managed his expectations from an early stage. Although it made attempts to meet with the alleged perpetrator, it has confirmed it was unable to do so.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its action plan to tackle the ASB. It is unclear to this investigation if it did this and shared it with the resident. Therefore, it has not demonstrated it took an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of ASB, as outlined in the Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance.
There is no record that it considered any early intervention remedies to tackle the issue. There is no record the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets, or whether it was relying on the ones provided to the resident by the local authority. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it followed its ASB policy and took reasonable steps to quickly gather evidence, as part of its response to the reported ASB.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the block of flats in August 2023, to gather information about the reported ASB. However, this was 9 months after the resident first reported the issue. Before this date, the landlord’s information gathering was limited to telephone calls and emails. In line with its ASB policy, we would have reasonably expected the landlord to have considered the use of noise monitors, CCTV and witness statements to quickly gather evidence of the reported ASB. In failing to demonstrate it followed its ASB policy, it was unable to support its position either way.
The landlord said it completed a referral to its tenancy sustainment and support team in April 2023. It also said that the local authority declined a safeguarding referral. We have not seen evidence of these referrals.
The landlord’s ASB acknowledgement letter sent on 14 February 2023, provided the resident with a link to complete online diary sheets. We have not been provided with copies of these. Although the resident said he completed the diary sheets, it is unclear when this was done. However, there is no record the landlord told the resident it could close the case without such evidence to support the allegations, as outlined in its ASB policy.
The evidence shows reasonable time gaps in the reports of ASB made by the resident. For example, following a report on 9 February 2023, we have not seen evidence of any further reports until 17 March 2023. This supports the landlord’s view on 24 May 2024, that the resident did not fully engage. However, it must be mitigated by the frustration the resident undoubtedly felt from his initial reports being ignored by the landlord.
We would have expected the landlord to have taken reasonable steps as part of its early intervention response, such as a block letter or ‘dear neighbour’ cards, as outlined in its ASB policy. Although it visited the block of flats, this should have also been as part of its early intervention response. We have not seen evidence the landlord obtained witness statements from the visits to the block of flats. And it is not known if the landlord thought it needed these.
The landlord’s complaint responses both recognised its failings in its response to the resident’s report of ASB. It acknowledged it should have investigated the reports of ASB earlier and should have taken more robust enforcement action to address them. It apologised for letting the resident down and recognised the impact the reported ASB had on the resident’s quality of life and mental health. It explained what action it was taking to address the reported ASB and that it would use the lessons learned from the case to improve its service delivery.
The landlord has not demonstrated its response to the ASB put the victim first in investigating the resident’s reports. It is understandable that the resident lost faith in the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues, after his initial reports about ASB were ignored. It is unclear if it had acted on these whether the resident would have fully engaged at that point. However, the delay would likely have caused the resident unnecessary distress. The landlord missed the opportunity for early intervention, to establish clear standards of behaviour and reinforce the message that it would not tolerate ASB.
The landlord has demonstrated it took steps to put things right and learn from the outcome of the case. It recognised its service failures and the level of detriment this caused the resident. This was reflected in its award of £600 compensation for the ASB failings, comprised of £100 for customer effort £200 for the delay, and £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration, and the landlord’s offer was proportionate considering all circumstances of the case.
It is the consideration of the Ombudsman that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so.
The landlord would be expected to handle reports of ASB under its ASB policy and procedures in the first instance. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of their reports, allowing sufficient time for it to act, it should consider a resident’s expression of dissatisfaction with its service under its formal complaints process.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would not agree to escalate a complaint to stage 2 of its process where it upheld a complaint, and the customer is only unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.
The resident made 5 reports of ASB before the landlord responded to him. He was becoming increasingly unhappy at the situation and the landlord’s failure to act. The landlord should have recognised this was evidence of the resident’s dissatisfaction with its service and raised the issue as a formal complaint. Had it done so, it would have had the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns earlier and act to resolve the substantive ASB issue more effectively.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 March 2024. He was unhappy that the landlord had not done anything to resolve the issue, following his reports of ASB. We contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 12 April 2024, to instruct it to raise a formal complaint.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024, addressed the reported ASB issue. It did not recognise it should have considered the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction with its service under its formal complaints process, at an earlier stage. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response recognised this failing and awarded the resident compensation to reflect this.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. On 3 May 2024, he emailed the landlord and said he felt the compensation awarded did not reflect the impact the issue had on his health and wellbeing. He asked the landlord to reconsider the amount of compensation it awarded.
While the landlord initially said it would not escalate the complaint because the resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation it offered, it ultimately did on 24 May 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 17 June 2024, which was 29 working days after the resident’s initial request.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response told the resident, it was unable to pay the additional compensation he sought or clear his rent arrears. It advised this was in line with its complaints policy that states, it is only able to fully investigate service failures that may have occurred up to 12 months prior to a receipt of a complaint. The landlord’s response was correct in advising it could not consider this aspect under its complaints policy. However, it could have better explained this and told the resident this could be dealt with separately under its insurance policy. There is no evidence to show the landlord did this or provided advice on how he could make such a claim.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was set out in a clear understandable way. It addressed the reported ASB issues that the resident raised, provided an explanation for the failures that had happened and told the resident of the decision it reached. It has demonstrated a willingness to learn from its failure to respond quicker, and recognised the complaint needed to be escalated sooner. It has introduced a new customer relationship management system to allow customers to track complaints and improve communication. It acknowledged its failure to raise a complaint earlier and awarded the resident £50 compensation to reflect this.
However, the landlord’s confused approach to escalating the resident’s complaint, meant its stage 2 acknowledgement letter was sent 14 working days after he asked for the complaint to be escalated. It failed to meet its target, for acknowledging a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days, which it did not recognise and apologise to the resident for. It is concerning that the landlord does not appear to be following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and we would not consider such an approach as a valid reason for it not escalating a complaint.
The compensation the landlord awarded for complaint handling failures, was appropriate for its failure to raise a complaint at an earlier stage. However, we do not consider this was enough, as it did not consider its failure to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within the timescale set out in its complaints policy. While this did not significantly impact on the resident, it was a further delay he experienced which would have been detrimental to him.
It is the consideration of the Ombudsman that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation, in addition to the £50 it offered for complaint handling failures set out in its stage 2 complaint response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. pay the resident £50 compensation, for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. pay the resident £650 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 complaint response, if it hasn’t already done so.
4. pay all compensation, directly to the resident and not offset it against any rent arrears. This includes the compensation awarded in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
The landlord must confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

Consider the findings and recommendations of our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report if it has not already done so. This is to help improve its record keeping.