Believe Housing Limited (202410482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410482

Believe Housing Limited

4 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is aware the resident has mental health issues and, because of this, she has given permission for a friend and a family member to act as her representatives.
On 11 April 2024 the resident reported she had been threatened with violence by a neighbour. Seven days later the landlord noted it spoke to her and she said she did not want further action taken.
The resident’s representative made the first complaint on 1 May 2024. This said:
1. The resident was a vulnerable adult and all communication should go through the representative, as previously agreed.
2. They had reported the resident had been harassed and bullied by a neighbour for 3 years, but nothing had been done.
3. The landlord had said the resident had asked for a recent ASB report to be closed, but this was not the case. Even if the resident had asked for this, contact should be made to one of the representatives and not the resident, as she was not able to make these kinds of decisions.
On 23 May 2024 the representative told the landlord the ASB had got worse, including intimidation and physical harassment. They asked for this to be investigated. The landlord arranged to visit the resident and her representative the following week. The representative later cancelled the appointment and said the resident did not want the landlord to visit.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the first complaint on 10 June 2024. This said it had spoken to both representatives, who had said they did not want to pursue the complaint. It confirmed it had tried to contact the resident on several occasions but had been unable to speak with her. Therefore, it was closing the complaint.
The resident made a second complaint, via us, on 15 July 2024. She said this was about the landlord’s management of her ASB reports. She said the landlord had closed the previous complaint without investigating it.
In July and August 2024 the landlord noted it spoke to one of the representatives and they said the resident did not want to speak or meet with it. They asked why it could not go ahead without the resident’s involvement, as they were acting on her behalf. The landlord said, because of comments made about the resident not being able to make decisions, if they wanted to act on her behalf, they would need to obtain power of attorney.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 8 August 2024. It said it was unable to progress the complaint as it did not have details of the ASB to understand how it could resolve this. Therefore, the complaint would be closed.
The resident chased a response to her complaint, via us, in December 2024 and January 2025. She said she had made a complaint in July 2024 but had not received a response.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 January 2025. This said:
1. It had escalated the complaint to stage 2 as the resident had received 2 previous stage 1 responses, and on our advice.
2. The resident had said she wanted it to speak directly to her representative, but it did not do this. It acknowledged there had been misleading communication about the difference between power of attorney and a resident giving permission for someone to speak on their behalf.
3. The representative had told the landlord the impact the ASB was having on the resident, so it should have carried out a risk assessment and completed an action plan.
4. It confirmed it had made mistakes, apologised and offered £500 compensation (£250 for complaint handling and £250 for ASB handling).
The landlord spoke to the representative about the ASB on 29 January 2025. During the call they advised the resident had CCTV footage, which they were checking to see if any incidents had been captured. The landlord agreed an action plan, completed a risk assessment and opened a new ASB case the same day. In February and March 2025 it asked the representative to provide CCTV footage/ evidence of the ASB.
On 19 March 2025 the landlord sent a case closure letter to the resident. It said it had been unable to take action because no evidence had been provided. It confirmed the investigation had been closed.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s ASB reports

The landlord’s ASB policy says threats of violence, intimidation, harassment and verbal abuse are types of ASB. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord treated the resident’s reports as such and dealt with them in line with its ASB policy.
The policy says that threats of violence will be classified as a ‘1 day priority’, which means initial contact will be made with the resident within 1 working day. When the resident reported she had been threatened with violence on 11 April 2024, the landlord did not contact her until 6 days later, on 18 April 2024. This was not in line with the committed response time.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will agree an action plan and carry out a risk assessment with residents reporting ASB. The landlord noted the resident asked it not to investigate her report in April 2024, therefore, it was reasonable that it took no action to do so. However, it should have completed a risk assessment to assess whether any additional support was needed. This was particularly important as the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable.
When a representative reported the ASB was getting worse on 23 May 2024, the landlord opened an ASB case and contacted them the following day to discuss this. This was in line with the 1 working day response time set out in its ASB policy.
The landlord tried to meet with the resident in May, July and August 2024 to discuss the ASB. In ASB cases, meeting with the victim can be a positive step to gather information and offer support/ reassurance. However, in this case, the resident had specifically asked for all contact to be made via her representatives. Therefore, the landlord should not have persisted in trying to arrange a meeting with her, as she had been clear she did not want to meet with it. Its repeated attempts to do so made her feel that the landlord was not listening to her.
One of these attempts, made on 26 July 2024, was done via an unannounced visit to the property. This is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware the resident has mental health issues and that contact is to be made via her representatives. Therefore, it was inappropriate to visit unannounced and showed the landlord had not considered the resident’s individual needs. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which says it will treat all residents fairly and with respect, and ensure that their individual circumstances and needs are considered at all times.
When the resident declined to meet with the landlord in May 2024, the representative asked to speak to the landlord’s urgent support team. The landlord said it made a referral to this team and an attempt was made to call the representative on 5 June 2024, but they said they did not receive any contact.
We have seen no written record of this contact attempt and so cannot be satisfied that this happened as stated by the landlord. Even if this attempt was made, this was the only done once. The landlord should have made further attempts to contact the representative via phone and in writing, before it closed the case. It did not do that and this left the resident unsupported and feeling let down.
In May 2024 and January 2025 the landlord noted it suggested mediation as a possible resolution. This was a sensible suggestion and in line with its ASB policy, which says it will use this, where appropriate, to resolve ASB. While the resident had said this was not an option, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to offer it, when it was unable to take any other enforcement action.
Similarly, the landlord engaged with the Police in May 2024 and February 2025. This was sensible considering the nature of the ASB reported and in line with its ASB policy, which says it will cooperate with local partnership arrangements to tackle ASB.
In July and August 2024 the landlord said it could not progress the ASB case as it needed direct contact with the resident. It said in a letter of 26 July 2024 that it was unclear if she wanted the ASB report investigated. It explained where it had conflicting information it needed to contact the resident directly to confirm the position. This was unreasonable as she had told the landlord she wanted all contact to be made via her representatives. Therefore, it should have engaged more with the representative to clarify the position, without continually contacting the resident, when she had specifically asked it not to. Its failure to do so left her feeling let down and like it did not want to help her.
When the representative challenged the landlord on 1 August 2024 about why it could not go ahead without the resident’s direct involvement, it advised they would need to obtain power of attorney. It said this was because of comments made about the resident not being able to make decisions. Where there is a concern about capacity, it is sensible for landlords to make further enquiries to ensure any issues are properly addressed.
In this case, it was reasonable that the landlord wanted to make enquiries beyond the representatives, as the concerns had been raised by them. However, as the resident had been clear that she did not want direct contact, the landlord should not have attempted to make enquiries about this with her. In the original complaint submitted on 1 May 2024, the representative made reference to the mental health team supporting the resident. Therefore, the landlord should have enquired with them about this issue, as it subsequently did in January 2025.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to say that power of attorney was needed, before it had properly investigated the capacity concerns. In doing so, it left the representatives feeling that they could not progress matters on the resident’s behalf. This was incorrect, unfair and led to a delay of several months in the landlord progressing the ASB case.
Following our intervention in December 2024 and January 2025, the landlord continued to contact the resident directly via letter on 2 January 2025 and an unannounced home visit and phone call on or around 22 January 2025. This was, again, inappropriate as the resident had asked for contact to be made via her representative. The landlord’s continued refusal to adhere to her requests was disappointing and caused her to lose faith in it.
Following contact with the representative on 24 January 2025, the landlord agreed to speak with them about the ASB to agree an action plan and complete a risk assessment. This was appropriate and showed it was now managing the case in line with the resident’s individual needs. When it spoke to the representative on 29 January 2025, it agreed an action plan and completed a risk assessment, which was in line with its ASB policy.
One of the agreed actions was to keep in contact with the representative on a weekly basis. This was in line with its ASB policy, which says action plans will include a timescale for how often residents would like to be contacted. After the ASB case was opened on 29 January 2025, the landlord followed up with the representative on a weekly basis, as per the agreement made. This showed it was taking the matter seriously.
The representative said the resident may have CCTV footage of some of the ASB incidents. The landlord asked for copies of this, which was sensible so it could review them and assess what, if any, action it could take. During a number of contacts in January and February 2025, the landlord asked for these and told the representative that it needed evidence of recent incidents to be able to progress action. It was appropriate that the landlord explained this and in line with its ASB policy, which says it will give realistic advice about what action it may be able to take, the level of evidence that will be required, and possible timescales.
The landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour as part of the action plan. It told the resident it would tell her before it did this, so she could be supported, in case of any backlash. The representative said the landlord did not do this and this resulted in the resident being verbally abused by the neighbour.
While upsetting for the resident, we have seen no evidence the landlord contacted the neighbour about the resident’s reports. The landlord confirmed this to the representative in early February 2025. The landlord said in an internal email that it was waiting to receive the CCTV evidence before doing so, which was sensible. Therefore, there was no failure by the landlord in respect of this.
The landlord closed the case in March 2025, as it had not received any evidence of the ASB from the resident. While frustrating for her, this was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, which says it may close a case where there are no breaches of the tenancy agreement. As the landlord had no evidence of tenancy breaches, and it had made repeated attempts to obtain this via the representative, it was reasonable that it concluded the case and took no further action at that time.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter. It apologised and offered a total of £250 compensation. It is positive the landlord independently identified failures in its handling of this issue and offered redress to the resident. This shows it was prepared to take accountability for its actions and wanted to put things right. However, in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. This is due to her existing vulnerabilities and that despite the landlord being aware of these, it failed to take these into account when handling the matter.
Balancing the landlord’s failures and the detriment caused to the resident, with the steps it has already taken to put things right; a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation, inclusive of the £250 offered if not done so already.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord sent its stage 1 responses to the first and second complaints in 26 and 18 working days respectively. Therefore, both were outside the target response time. There is no evidence the landlord extended the deadlines or acknowledged the delays in either of the responses. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord closed the first complaint without investigating it. It said this was because it had spoken to both representatives, who had said they did not want to pursue this. The representatives disputes this and, despite asking the landlord for evidence of these conversations, it has been unable to provide anything to support its position.
We have seen evidence of contact from one of the representatives to the landlord on 10 and 13 June 2024 chasing up the complaint. This directly contradicts the landlord’s assertion that they said they did not want to pursue it. Therefore, we are not satisfied the landlord’s decision to close the complaint was reasonable. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose trust in it.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response said it was unable to progress the complaint as it did not have details of the ASB to understand how it could resolve this. This was incorrect as the representative had provided details of the ASB within the first complaint and the landlord’s records contained details of the resident’s reports, which it should have reviewed.
The landlord made attempts to visit and speak with the resident as part of its handling of the second complaint. While it is often good practice to speak with a resident about their complaint, this is not an essential step if the resident does not want to do so. Landlords should not unreasonably refuse to investigate a complaint on that basis. While it is preferable to have a detailed overview of the issues, this is not always possible and investigations should be done where there is enough information to proceed.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord had enough information to proceed with a complaint investigation. Therefore, its decision not to was inappropriate and unfair. This amounts to maladministration and further damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The landlord said it needed to speak directly to the resident, rather than her representative, in order to progress the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy, which says residents can ask for a representative to deal with a complaint on their behalf and it will handle complaints made by a third party in line with its policy. Its refusal to engage with the representative essentially blocked the resident from progressing her complaint. This amounts to maladministration and made her feel it did not want to help her.
We note the landlord had concerns about the resident being able to make decisions. As with its handling of the ASB reports, the landlord could have addressed this concern with the mental health team supporting the resident, rather than trying to speak to her about this. Particularly as she had told it she did not want direct contact with it. It was, therefore, unreasonable that it concluded the matter on the basis that the resident had not responded to contact attempts. It should have done more to engage with the representative or other services to ensure progress was made. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
When the resident made further contact with the landlord about her complaint, via us, on 20 December 2024, it did not log this as a formal complaint. It was only after we chased a response on 22 January 2025, that it logged this as a formal stage 2 complaint. At this point the resident had been complaining for 8 months but not received a proper response to her concerns. This amounts to maladministration.
The purpose of the landlord’s complaints process is to identify failure and put things right. The landlord’s repeated failures in its complaint handling meant this did not happen, despite the resident raising repeated complaints. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to put things right for her sooner. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling let down.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling. It apologised and offered £250 compensation. Considering the cumulative failures and the detriment caused to the resident, the redress offered was insufficient. Therefore a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation, inclusive of the £250 offered if not done so already. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident and the redress needed is at the higher end of the scale. This is in consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced as a result of the failures. We have also made an order for the landlord to share lessons learnt from this case with all complaint handling staff.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 compensation for its handling of her ASB reports (inclusive of the £250 already offered, if not done so).
  2. £500 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £250 already offered, if not done so).
2. Shared lessons learnt from this case with all complaint handling staff.