Ability Housing Association (202322628)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322628

Ability Housing Association

30 June 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move properties.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property was a 1– bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord’s records state the resident has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The complained of neighbour lived in the flat above the resident.
Between April 2023 and August 2023 the resident reported many incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour. This included stomping, banging and shouting.
We have seen evidence that in emails from the resident on 21 August 2023 and 25 August 2023 he asked for his concerns to be raised to the “highest stage of complaint”.
On 21 August 2023 the resident told the landlord he had not slept and could not put up with his neighbour’s behaviour any longer. He asked for his neighbour to be moved as his mental health was being affected.
On 25 August 2023 the resident told the landlord he felt sick from all the stress. The resident referenced suicidal thoughts and told the landlord that the situation could have been stopped years ago.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It:
1. Summarised the resident’s reports and the actions taken by the landlord.
2. Stated that the landlord had dealt with his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in line with tools and powers available.
3. Acknowledged the neighbour’s behaviour had a significant impact on the resident.
4. Said it had considered legal options however this was not appropriate.
5. Offered an internal move and contacted the council regarding a “reciprocal arrangement”.
6. Would work with those supporting the neighbour so they could move as soon as an appropriate property was found.
On 2 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the complaint response. He said he needed a new property as soon as possible and more action to be taken. He said his mental health was being affected and he did not feel the landlord valued his mental health. He also said that the carpet in his bedroom was going mouldy. The resident felt he should be compensated for everything he had been through.
Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 1 November 2023 requesting his complaint be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. It:
1. Acknowledged that discussing potential solutions and then not going ahead if no longer possible would have raised the resident’s expectations. It apologised that the resident felt let down.
2. Confirmed legal action for possession of the neighbour’s property was not possible.
3. Said the resident has been given highest priority on the council’s housing bidding system. The landlord would continue to liaise and support with bidding on any suitable properties.
4. Would complete a review of the flooring in the flat above to see if any additional solutions could minimise the noise.
5. Was unable to provide a timeline of when the resident or neighbour may move.
6. Was sorry to hear how the resident’s wellbeing had been affected. It said it had provided the resident with support.
7. Said repair works relating to damp and mould were 10 days outside the target on 2 occasions. The landlord offered £274 compensation for periods the resident could not use his bedroom.
8. Requested photographs and receipts for items damaged by mould to consider compensation.
9. Had instructed a damp and mould specialist who would assess if there were any issues with the flooring in the bedroom.
The resident moved property on 15 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident. We may not consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore be from 6 months prior to when the resident raised his complaint. This is because we consider this to be a reasonable period of time to assess the landlord’s actions before the complaint was raised. However we understand that there was a much longer history of reports and have noted this when considering all the circumstances in this case.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 November 2023. At the time of its response, the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, we have considered events beyond the final response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the ASB case has adversely impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

We acknowledge that this situation was distressing for the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that ASB is conscious and deliberate acts which may result in nuisance, harassment, alarm and distress being caused to another. It says noise nuisance and harassment is an example of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy states “In circumstances where vulnerabilities are identified, we will always seek to engage other agencies particularly before enforcement action is taken against a vulnerable customer unless an emergency or critical situation has arisen where there could be a significant risk of harm should enforcement action be delayed.”
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In reviewing the evidence in this case, there are multiple occasions where the resident has referenced information that it is not clear how he came to know this. This indicates that some of the landlord’s conversations with the resident may not have been appropriately recorded. A recommendation has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
A home visit was completed to the resident on 24 April 2023. During this visit, the resident told the landlord of ongoing issues with the neighbour. The landlord completed a risk assessment the same day. The outcome of this was medium risk.
Between 29 April 2023 and 25 May 2023 the resident reported many incidents of ASB. He alleged his neighbour was stomping, shouting and banging. The resident told the landlord his sleep was being prevented, and he felt extremely anxious and stressed. He asked his landlord to move his neighbour.
In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord took the following actions:
1. Acknowledged most of the resident’s reports. It confirmed action was being taken but could not disclose further details due to confidentiality.
2. Discussed the allegations with the neighbour on the telephone.
3. Visited the neighbour to discuss further reports of ASB. This included giving the neighbour advice on how to minimise noise.
4. Considered options for underlay in the property above. The evidence shows the landlord considered if a charity could assist.
5. Offered the neighbour a move to a new property.
We have not received a record of a call that took place between the resident and landlord on 26 May 2023. Our knowledge of this is from the landlord’s stage 1 response. In the landlord’s conversation with the resident, it advised the resident that it had taken all actions available relating to the ASB. The landlord’s complaint response said it was explained to the resident that “another authority such as the police or environmental heath would be better placed to work with the landlord so formal action could be taken.” It was positive for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations of what actions the landlord could take and tell the resident of other agencies available.
The resident and landlord met on 7 June 2023. Again, we are only aware of what was discussed in the meeting from the landlord’s stage one response. The resident was updated that the neighbour would be moving properties in “around 10 weeks”.
On 27 June 2023 the resident asked if the landlord could do anything about the ASB until the neighbour moved. The resident said he was feeling unsafe, distressed and that his neighbour was shouting, swearing and banging. The landlord responded to the resident the next day. It said the neighbour was having a particularly difficult time due to bereavements and asked for the resident to be understanding to the neighbour. The landlord said the property would be available for the neighbour in the next 6-8 weeks. It was positive for the landlord to provide an update to the resident and in line with its policy of taking a fair and impartial approach, it had to also take into consideration the needs of the neighbour. Its response however could have made the resident feel his own distress was not being considered.
Throughout July and August 2023 the resident continued to report ASB of the same nature. In emails to the landlord, the resident said he was struggling to sleep, he was so stressed his chest was hurting and the noise was triggering his PTSD. On 21 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that he could not put up with the noise anymore, his mental health was impacted and he wanted to pack up and leave his home in the middle of the night. The resident asked multiple times if the neighbour could be moved sooner. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it worked closely with the resident during that time, “being mindful of the effect on your mental and physical wellbeing”. However without evidence of the landlord’s actions, we are unable to say if it acted appropriately.
On 23 August 2023 the resident reported that his neighbour approached him while having a smart meter installed. The resident felt harassed. The landlord responded promptly by contacting the neighbour the same day and told the neighbour to stay away from the resident.
On 24 August 2023 the resident contacted the police and landlord. He said the neighbour was “kicking off”, shouting, screaming and banging. The resident told the landlord “I’m literally at a stage where I ‘feel’ it’s better if I died then put up with this”. He also said he had been sick from stress. The landlord booked the resident a hotel for the bank holiday weekend. It was appropriate for the landlord to take prompt action to provide respite to the resident.
On 4 September 2023 the landlord held an internal meeting regarding the resident’s risk and reports of ASB. The case was assessed as high risk. Following the meeting, a safeguarding referral was made to the local authority. Given the ongoing distress caused to the resident, it was appropriate the landlord made this referral. The landlord told the safeguarding team that the resident was very vulnerable and in need of ongoing support. The landlord also contacted the council to see if they could assist with rehousing the resident. In an email to the resident, the landlord told him that it was in “regular contact with the solicitors to ensure that we push this injunction through as quickly as possible”. The evidence provided is not clear as to when the landlord first considered applying for an injunction.
The evidence from the landlord indicated the resident’s neighbour had complex needs. Therefore, following the resident’s reports, the landlord contacted the neighbour’s support services to discuss their behaviour. This happened regularly throughout the case. Given the neighbour’s personal circumstances, we consider this was a reasonable and proportionate approach to take to try to reduce the ASB.
On 15 September 2023 the landlord’s evidence shows a call log, however there is no information included. From the landlord’s stage 1 response, it states the resident made a complaint that his neighbour had made threats and the resident thought the neighbour had a knife. The landlord states it visited the resident “immediately” and took a witness statement so an injunction could be given further consideration. In an email on 18 September 2023 the landlord requested to be a part of any police involvement and behaviour plans regarding the neighbour. This was a reasonable approach as threats against another person may warrant a police investigation. It is clear the resident was distressed following the incident. In the days after, the resident said in emails to the landlord that he was drained, had not slept since and had no energy. Given the lack of evidence provided for this incident, we are unable to say if the landlord supported the resident appropriately following his report.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord attended a professionals meeting. Following information disclosed, it was decided that an application for an injunction against the neighbour was no longer appropriate.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. It updated him that an injunction was no longer appropriate. This news was clearly upsetting for the resident who said the neighbour “could get away with anything”. Although this caused him distress and was not the outcome he wanted, the landlord updated the resident promptly following the decision being made. During the call to the resident, the landlord discussed mental health support for him. The resident told the landlord that it was in place and he did not want to discuss it. This showed the landlord was considering the effect on the resident’s wellbeing.
In October and November 2023 the resident continued to report ASB. The evidence shows incidents were continuing to impact the resident’s mental health and affecting his sleep. The resident requested the landlord contact the neighbour’s support team and move him or the neighbour. During this time, the landlord completed a further risk assessment and discussed the resident’s support with him. It told the resident to let it know if there was any more support he needed. It spoke with the resident regularly and arranged a multi-agency meeting to discuss the resident’s wellbeing and support available. The landlord’s actions showed consideration of the resident’s wellbeing and the landlord taking a proactive joint working approach to try to manage the ongoing issues. The landlord also offered an internal move to the resident and liaised with the council regarding rehousing. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move has been assessed further later in this report.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that by proposing actions such as moving the neighbour and an injunction and then not being able to progress these actions, had raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord apologised that the resident felt let down due to this. It was appropriate to acknowledge that this would have made the resident feel that commitments from the landlord had been broken.
Following the complaint response, the landlord and resident were in regular contact until the resident moved out of the property on 15 March 2024. During this period, the resident’s mental health deteriorated further. The resident expressed suicidal thoughts and told the landlord he nearly acted on taking his own life. We have seen evidence that the landlord liaised with the mental health team, raising concerns for the resident’s deteriorating mental health. The mental health team were visiting the resident daily. The landlord asked the mental health team if there was anything further it could do to support him. The landlord also visited the resident weekly and often had regular contact in between to provide reassurance. We acknowledge this would have been an extremely distressing time for the resident.
Throughout the case the resident reported incidents of noise and harassment and clearly described the distress it caused to him. The evidence provided, in particular the emails from the resident, indicated how stressful this was for him. We recognise how distressing this would have been for the resident and the negative impact on him. Whilst the landlord was not always able to achieve the results the resident hoped for, it maintained regular contact and demonstrated a commitment to supporting him. Although we have identified some gaps in the landlord’s records, it is our view that overall the landlord acted appropriately, considering the tools and powers available in the circumstances. We therefore find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

Between 25 August 2023 and November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in his property. He said:
1. The bedroom carpet was mouldy around the edges and there was mould in a cupboard.
2. He had to purchase his own dehumidifiers and was struggling to afford the tablets for them. He requested the landlord provided dehumidifiers.
3. He requested the landlord compensated him for use of dehumidifiers.
4. He was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the mould and was sleeping on a mattress on the floor.
5. Furniture and personal items have been damaged by mould.
In response to the resident’s repair reports, the landlord:
1. Completed a mould wash.
2. Installed airbricks.
3. Installed a vent in the cupboard.
4. Replaced damaged shelving in cupboard.
5. Replaced fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
6. Provided the resident with a dehumidifier.
7. Agreed to pay £3.50 per day for the running costs of the dehumidifier. This was to be paid to the resident weekly.
8. Agreed to complete a damp survey.
It therefore took reasonable steps to resolve the mould and damp reported at that time.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it confirmed the completed works and noted that the resident had seen a significant improvement with the mould. The landlord recognised that the repairs were completed 10 working days outside target on 2 occasions. It apologised and offered the resident compensation of £274 for the delay. This was 20% for the loss of the resident’s use of his bedroom. It was positive for the landlord to recognise the delay and offer the resident an apology and compensation. This showed the resident his complaint was taken seriously and a commitment from the landlord to try to put things right.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it confirmed it had asked a “damp and mould specialist” to investigate the cause of the damp and mould. If the specialist confirmed the carpet needed replacing, the landlord agreed to do this. The landlord also requested receipts and photographs for damaged items so it could consider compensation.
On 29 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the compensation offered at stage 2 was not enough to reflect the items he has had to replace due to mould. The resident requested compensation for:
1. The mattress and bed slats.
2. A jacket.
3. Laptop bag.
4. Phone case.
5. Flooring.
Between 29 November 2023 and 22 December 2023 the resident provided photographs and receipts for the items damaged by mould. On 22 December 2023 the landlord offered the resident £800 compensation, with the carpet to be reviewed once the damp and mould specialist had assessed it. The resident accepted this offer.
It was reasonable for the landlord to await the outcome of the damp and mould survey and to be guided by any recommendations because this was an independent assessment of whether the carpet needed replacement due to damp and mould.
The damp and mould survey was completed on 30 January 2024. The survey results said “in the vast majority of areas, visually, the fitted carpet appeared unaffected by the event”. The survey did not recommend any remedial action relating to the bedroom carpet. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 February 2024 to advise that following the survey results, it would not offer reimbursement towards the cost of this carpet. It was proportionate for the landlord to make this decision following no recommendations being made in the survey.
While we appreciate that the damp and mould would have been distressing for the resident, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord completed identified repairs to try to resolve the issues and completed a damp and mould survey. The landlord acted reasonably by considering reimbursement to the resident for damaged personal items and furniture. The landlord showed consideration to the resident’s request for replacement carpet and only made the decision not to replace it following it being identified that no action was needed in the damp and mould survey. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move properties

The landlord’s tenancy management policy states: “Where local authority agreements allow, [the landlord] will consider transferring our customers to another property within our housing stock where there is evidence that a tenant’s wellbeing would be significantly improved by completing such a move”.
The evidence shows the resident wanted either himself or his neighbour to be moved.
We have not commented on the actions the landlord took relating to moving the resident’s neighbour as this would involve assessing information about another person’s personal circumstances.
The landlord offered the resident an internal transfer. On 30 August 2023 the resident viewed the property. He did not accept the offer of a move as he felt the property was unsuitable.
From September 2023 to February 2024, the landlord took the following actions:
1. Contacted the council’s housing department and supported a move for the resident. We have seen evidence that the resident was awarded a band A priority.
2. Held multi-agency meetings to discuss the resident’s living situation. During the meeting, the resident was advised to log in to the housing system weekly and bid on properties. He was also told to register on the homeswapper website to look for a mutual exchange.
3. Contacted other housing associations to enquire about the possibility of a “reciprocal swap”.
4. Offered a further internal move. The resident did not accept this as the property was too far from his family.
5. Regularly contacted the council’s housing department for updates.
6. Contacted the resident and the council when it found suitable properties for the resident that he could bid on.
7. Requested if the resident could be considered for over 55’s bungalows even though he did not meet the criteria.
It is clear from the evidence that the resident was struggling in his home. In emails to the landlord, the resident asked the landlord to “push even harder” to help him move. The actions of the landlord demonstrate willingness to assist the resident and that it considered the impact the situation was having.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it told the resident it could not give a timescale of when the resident would be moved as it cannot predict the availability of a suitable property. It said it had worked with professionals and would continue to review what the quickest resolution would be for the resident.
While it is recognised the resident found living in the property distressing and wanted to move as soon as possible, we have found that the landlord acted appropriately. This is because it followed its policy and considered internal moves for the resident. It also liaised with other professionals to explore further rehousing options. The landlord evidenced a joined-up working approach to try to get a resolution for the resident. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move properties.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move properties.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to maintain accurate records in relation to its ASB cases, specifically relating to contact with residents so that it can demonstrate and support the decisions it makes.