Golding Homes Limited (202318490)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318490

Golding Homes Limited

27 February 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:
1. Concerns over car parking outside her house.
2. Concerns about a potential data breach.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a house, where she lives with her partner and children.
In July 2022, the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a formal written notice, instructing them to stop using the visitor parking bay as it was a breach of their tenancy conditions. In December 2022, the landlord instructed a contractor to draw up a quote for relocating the neighbour’s garden access gate, which led directly to the visitor bay.
On 23 March 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that the landlord had not updated her on any action taken to stop her neighbour from regularly occupying the visitor bay, parking inconsiderately, and carrying out vehicle repairs in the space. She explained that she had sent photographic evidence and followed up multiple times, but the landlord had not responded.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing an update and explained that it had been trying to contact the housing developer responsible for the estate. The landlord stated that it was arranging for the relocation of the neighbour’s garden access gate and hoped this change would resolve the issue. The landlord also assured the resident that it would monitor the situation to ensure work started promptly.
On 26 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She stated that the parking issue remained unresolved, and the landlord had not provided a timeline for a resolution. The resident explained that the landlord’s poor communication and handling of her concerns had caused her significant stress and anxiety. She requested a call from a manager and asked for £250 compensation.
On the 26 May 2023, the landlord instructed a contractor to begin works on relocating the neighbour’s garden access gate.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that it had failed to keep her updated on the handling of her reports and agreed to provide weekly updates while the work to the neighbour’s gate was ongoing. It also committed to monitoring the parking situation after the work was completed. Additionally, the landlord stated that it would distribute a parking agreement for all residents in the area to sign. As part of its response, the landlord offered the following compensation:
1. £250 for failing to keep the resident informed
2. £100 for poor communication
3. £50 for the delay to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint
On 29 June 2023, the contractor informed the landlord that works to relocate the neighbour’s gate had been completed.
In July 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour was still preventing other residents from using the visitor parking bay. She provided photographic evidence from her video doorbell showing the neighbour carrying out work on cars in the bay. The landlord shared this evidence with the neighbour.
On 25 August 2023, the resident told us that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and formal complaint.
On 30 August 2023, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord. She stated that it had failed to keep her identity confidential by sharing the evidence she had provided. As a result, she reported that the neighbour had verbally abused her partner when he returned from work and had made posts about them on social media. She also stated that she was being bullied by her neighbours and felt intimidated and isolated in her home with her children. The resident asked the landlord to investigate a potential data breach.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 September 2023. It confirmed that it had referred her concerns to its data breach team, who determined that the information shared was considered low risk and did not need to be reported to the information commissioner’s office (ICO). However, the landlord stated that it had reminded staff to take greater care when sharing photographic evidence in the future. It also clarified that it was handling the resident’s parking concerns in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and that a senior member of staff would review the case to determine whether further action was necessary.
On 26 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She asked the landlord to explain how it had determined the data breach as ‘low risk,’ given the impact it was having on her and her family. She also asked the landlord to provide compensation in recognition of the distress and disruption caused.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2023. It explained that the resident’s details had not been shared directly with anyone, but that the neighbour had identified her, based on the angle and location of the photograph from the doorbell camera. The landlord apologised that this had allowed the neighbour to determine the resident’s identity. It confirmed that it had referred the breach to the ICO and would follow any guidance provided once the ICO responded with its findings. The landlord also offered the resident £75 compensation for the delay in referring the data breach to its internal data breach team.

Events after conclusion of the complaints process

In December 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had explored the possibility of removing the visitor parking bay but found that this was not feasible. It also revised the compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response, increasing it to £150.
In June 2024, the landlord confirmed that it was no longer the landlord of the resident’s property, as ownership had been transferred to another housing provider.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has expressed that the landlord’s handling of her concerns caused her significant stress and anxiety, affecting her ability to eat or sleep properly. We acknowledge her comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for her. However, claims of personal injury, including the impact on mental health, fall outside the complaints process. These can be pursued through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in court, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have affected her health. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, as well as how it responded to the resident’s concerns about her mental health.
The resident’s complaint includes concerns of a potential data breach. Paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which can be found on our website, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The ICO is the appropriate body to investigate alleged data breaches, and we do not make findings on whether a breach has occurred. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about data protection, including whether it handled the matter fairly and communicated appropriately.
The resident has told us that the parking issue remains ongoing. As she has a new landlord, she can report her concerns to the new landlord, along with details of the actions taken by her previous landlord. If she is not satisfied with how her new landlord handles the issue, she can raise a formal complaint directly with it. Should she remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

Legal obligations and policy framework

The resident’s lease agreement, along with agreements for other residents in similar arrangements with the landlord, prohibits them from parking their own vehicles in visitor parking spaces. These spaces are designated for use by visitors only.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person
2. conduct capable of causing a serious nuisance
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
The policy states that upon receiving a report, the landlord will inform residents whether any action can be taken and outline this in an action plan. Residents will be asked to keep a diary of incidents to help assess the severity of the problem.
Additionally, the policy confirms that the landlord may issue warning letters to alleged perpetrators or request that they sign voluntary written agreements to stop ASB. It also confirms that the landlord will not disclose where information has come from without the complainant’s permission.
In September 2023, the landlord introduced a neighbourhood and estate management policy, which aims to promote good neighbourhood relationships and positive behaviours through education and enforcement tools. These include:
1. Offering parking agreements to shared communal parking areas
2. Working with external third parties to manage parking through patrols and enforcement
3. Offering mediation
When the resident submitted her formal complaint in March 2023, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. At the time:
1. Stage 1 complaints were responded to within 8 working days
2. Stage 2 complaints were responded to within 21 working days
In August 2023, the landlord revised its complaints policy, extending the stage 1 response time to 10 working days and reducing the stage 2 response time to 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over parking outside her house

The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s initial report about the parking issue. Without this, we cannot fairly assess how it first responded, the length of time it took to act, or whether it followed its ASB policy when handling the matter. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and comprehensive records of reported issues and takes care to provide all necessary documentation requested. Good recordkeeping is essential for demonstrating accountability and ensuring transparency in how reports are managed. Without clear records, there is a risk that concerns are not fully addressed or that necessary follow-up actions are overlooked.
Based on the evidence available, it is positive that the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a formal written notice in July 2022. While the absence of documentation means we cannot determine whether this was a timely or sufficient response, this action showed that the landlord took some formal steps to resolve the problem. This was also in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord instructed a contractor to draw up a quote for relocating the neighbour’s gate in December 2022. However, there is no evidence that it monitored the progress of this instruction, which resulted in a 2-month delay before the contractor responded, stating the request had been overlooked. Given that the landlord initiated this action as a solution to reduce the neighbour’s use of the visitor parking bay, it was responsible for ensuring the work progressed efficiently. Failing to follow up undermined the effectiveness of its proposed resolution and caused an unnecessary delay. The landlord should have proactively monitored the request to prevent avoidable setbacks and ensured that the work started within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that in February 2023, it asked the resident to submit photographic evidence to substantiate her allegations. In line with its ASB policy, it assured her that it would not disclose where the information came from. It also told her that it was waiting for a start date for the works and had arranged to meet with her neighbour to discuss the allegations. While this demonstrated that the landlord was keeping the resident informed of its actions, it should have also created an agreed action plan with her, as required under its ASB policy. This plan should have included specific timescales for each step, allowing the resident to understand when actions would be taken. It would have also demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving her concerns in a timely manner. Without this, the resident was left uncertain about when she would receive further updates, or whether any action the landlord took was making a difference.
The resident did not receive an update on the progress of the case until the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in April 2023. This meant that, despite following up 6 times to report additional parking breaches by the neighbour and submitting a formal complaint, she was left without any information for 2 months. The landlord’s failure to provide proactive updates meant that the resident had to chase for information, creating uncertainty about whether any action was being taken. Even if an immediate resolution was not possible, clear, and timely communication may have reassured the resident that the landlord was addressing the issue. Instead, its reactive approach likely made the process feel unstructured and undermined the resident’s confidence in how her concerns were being handled.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response attributed part of its delay in updating the resident to attempts to contact the housing estate’s developer. However, we have seen no evidence of this in its records, nor have we seen any documentation of actions taken in response to the additional reports the resident raised since its last communication with her. Although the landlord was focused on relocating the neighbour’s gate, it was still expected to acknowledge and follow up on the resident’s reports. We would have expected to see a summary of its discussions with the neighbour, which should have also been relayed to the resident, while maintaining confidentiality. It could have also conducted unannounced visits to the area to demonstrate active monitoring of the situation.
We are not suggesting that these actions did not occur. However, in the absence of supporting evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude that, at this stage, the landlord went far enough to meaningfully manage the ongoing situation. By failing to demonstrate active involvement during this period, the landlord risked allowing the situation to persist unchecked, leaving the resident without reassurance that her concerns were being taken seriously. Additionally, without clear evidence of its actions, the landlord weakened its ability to take stronger enforcement measures if the problem continued, as it had no documented history of ongoing intervention.
The landlord’s records show that between April 2023 and June 2023, it was in communication with the contractor regularly to ensure the works progressed and were completed. It also provided the resident with weekly updates and checked in with her to see if there had been any further parking issues. This marked an improvement in the landlord’s approach. By maintaining regular contact and seeking updates from the resident, the landlord demonstrated a more responsive and structured approach than in the earlier stages of the case. Additionally, the landlord’s records do not indicate that it received any further reports from the resident during this period, which suggests that the issue may have subsided.
In June 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would issue parking agreements to all residents in the area. These agreements set out expectations for the use of visitor parking bays and general conduct about considerate parking. This was a positive step, as it aligned with the tools outlined in the landlord’s ASB policy and demonstrated that the landlord was taking a structured approach to managing the parking issues.
Having reviewed the agreement, we note that it included a section for residents to sign, date, and return. However, the landlord’s records do not indicate whether it explained to the resident whether signing the agreement was voluntary or mandatory, what would happen if her neighbours refused to sign, or how it would measure the agreement’s effectiveness. While issuing the parking agreements was a constructive step, their success relied on resident compliance. By failing to set out how it would ensure adherence or address non-compliance, the landlord risked the agreement being ineffective rather than a meaningful solution.
Consequently, the landlord’s records show that the resident remained unclear about whether the agreements had any enforcement power, resumed her reports of the neighbour’s continuous use of the visitor parking bay, and expressed that she felt the agreement was being ignored.
We understand that investigating ASB reports requires sufficient evidence before further action can be taken. We recognise that a landlord needs time to implement measures, review their effectiveness, and decide on the next steps. However, this process should be clearly explained to residents, who understandably expect a situation to be resolved quickly due to its impact on them. By this stage in its handling of the resident’s concerns, the landlord had taken proportionate and reasonable measures to address the issue.
However, because it did not manage the resident’s expectations, she continued submitting evidence of her neighbour’s breaches until August 2023, repeatedly asking why the landlord was not taking further action. During this time, her correspondence and callback requests went unanswered. This lack of clear communication meant the resident did not know what to expect. The landlord’s failure to manage expectations understandably left the resident frustrated, further diminishing her confidence in its ability to resolve the matter.
Between September 2023 and December 2023, the landlord consulted the estate management company, which owned the visitor parking bay, to explore what further enforcement action could be taken. This was a reasonable step, as it showed the landlord recognised that its previous efforts had not resolved the issue and was seeking alternative solutions. During this period, the landlord also told the resident that a senior manager would review the case, which demonstrated an attempt to provide additional reassurance. Its records further confirm that it considered whether the visitor parking space could be removed. These actions showed the landlord was actively looking for further ways to resolve the issue and was committed to addressing the resident’s concerns.
Between January 2024 and March 2024, the resident resumed her reports of the neighbour preventing use of the visitor parking bay. The landlord’s records indicate that it asked her to complete diary sheets documenting the continued breaches. However, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed a monitoring period for the diary sheets or followed up on the incidents the resident had been asked to record. As a result, 1 month passed before the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on when it would be in touch with her.
While we acknowledge diary sheets are a valuable evidence-gathering exercise, landlords need to be clear on their purpose and what will happen once a resident completes them. The landlord’s records do not show any analysis of the diary sheets once they were returned, nor that it informed her of the next steps. This lack of clarity likely made the resident feel as though the situation was being unnecessarily dragged out, with no indication of when or if any further meaningful action would be taken.
In April 2024, the landlord informed the resident that parking disputes were difficult to resolve, as there was little enforcement action it could take. However, it committed to conducting visits to the area. While it is true that parking disputes can be challenging to resolve, the landlord still had a responsibility to promote good neighbour relations. Its neighbourhood management policy outlined a range of tools, some of which the landlord had not yet explored. However, as ownership of the resident’s property was transferred to another housing provider shortly after, it is unclear whether the landlord had been planning to take further action or if the impending transfer influenced its approach.
Overall, while the landlord took some reasonable steps to prevent the neighbour’s continued use of the visitor bay, its approach was reactive. Delays, poor communication, and failure to set clear expectations meant its response fell below a reasonable standard. Additionally, its failure to create an action plan at any stage significantly contributed to many of the failings in its handling of the case. Collectively, these issues have led us to determine maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over parking outside her house.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined that there was maladministration which has adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right.
The landlord’s previous offer of £350 compensation, made in June 2023, for failing to keep the resident informed and its poor communication was an appropriate remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused up until that point. If it has not already done so, the landlord must now pay this sum to the resident.
However, due to its failure to create an action plan, continued poor communication, and lack of effective expectation management, the landlord must pay the resident £200 in additional compensation. This amount reflects the further distress and inconvenience caused by these ongoing failures and is separate from and in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of compensation offer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a potential data breach

On 26 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that its sharing of photographic evidence with her neighbour had resulted in verbal abuse and intimidation. Despite the seriousness of her concerns, the landlord took 32 working days to refer the issue to its data breach team, causing an avoidable delay in the matter being formally reviewed. While the landlord later acknowledged this delay and offered £75 in compensation, this was a reactive response rather than a proactive resolution. Given the potential consequences of a data breach, the landlord should have escalated the issue immediately to ensure a timely and thorough assessment.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s data breach concerns did not provide a clear or reassuring explanation of why the disclosure of her evidence was considered low risk and not reportable. Given the serious impact on the resident, including her fear of repercussions, the landlord needed to show greater transparency and sensitivity in its handling of her concerns. Additionally, while the landlord apologised for any upset caused by sharing her images, an apology alone was not sufficient to address the resident’s concerns or the consequences of the disclosure.
The landlord should have considered whether it needed to open an ASB case to investigate the reported abuse. Additionally, it should have provided guidance on how the resident could escalate her concerns externally, such as liaising with relevant agencies to ensure her safety. By failing to take these steps, the landlord’s response did not sufficiently address the distress its actions had caused or demonstrate a proactive approach to supporting the resident.
The landlord appropriately referred the breach to the ICO and informed the resident that it would follow any recommended guidance once it received a response. This demonstrated its willingness to learn from the complaint and its commitment to ensuring that staff were clearer on the importance of checking with complainants before sharing information in the future.
The landlord later increased its compensation to £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its decision to share the photographs with the neighbour. This was reasonable redress for the landlord’s error and aligned with what we would have ordered it to pay if it had not already done so. While we recognise the impact of the situation on the resident, in cases of ASB investigations, there is always a risk that a complainant’s identity may become known, even when landlords take all reasonable steps to protect their anonymity. The landlord is not responsible for the actions of the neighbour and no action the landlord could take would be guaranteed to prevent someone from committing ASB.
While there were clear failings in the landlord’s handling of the potential data breach, it took steps to acknowledge its errors, provide proportionate redress, and commit to improving staff awareness. Therefore, we have determined that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in response to its failings in this area.
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation already offered for this element of her complaint, if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised her first complaint with the landlord on 23 March 2023, and it issued its stage 1 complaint response 15 working days later. This was slightly outside of the landlord’s published timescales for responding to stage 1 complaints. When the resident escalated her complaint on 26 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 29 working days later, which was also outside its published timescales, with no evidence at that it kept the resident informed of the delay.
The landlord also failed to meet its timescales for responding to the resident’s formal complaint about the potential data breach, taking 19 working days to issue its stage 1 complaint response and 23 working days for stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available of our website, states that landlords should keep residents updated on delays, even if they cannot provide a full response within the set timeframe. This ensures transparency and helps maintain trust in the complaints process. Although individually the delays were not excessive, the cumulative impact of multiple delays was significant. The landlord’s failure to provide updates on delays at any stage, combined with consistent delay in responding, likely left the resident feeling dismissed and unsupported.
However, as the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £50 for its poor complaint handling, demonstrating accountability for its errors, we have determined that it has provided reasonable redress in response to the errors in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation already offered for its poor complaint handling if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over parking outside her house.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s offer before our involvement satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s concerns about a potential data breach.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s offer before our involvement satisfactorily resolves its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £350 it previously offered for failing to keep the resident informed and its poor communication
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified in its handling of her parking concerns
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the following compensation:
1. £150 it previously offered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its decision to share her photographs with the neighbour
2. £50 for its poor complaint handling
The determinations made in this report are based on the above recommendations being completed.