Golding Homes Limited (202334981)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334981

Golding Homes Limited

23 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy started on 4 December 2006. At the time of this complaint the resident lived in a studio flat on the eleventh floor of a high rise block. He moved to another property in a different area in July 2024 under the landlord’s management move process. The resident has significant health conditions, including anxiety and PTSD, and is vulnerable.
3. The resident reported incidents of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour from other residents to the landlord in June 2022. In response, the landlord approved a management move on 29 June 2022. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2023. He said he had reported an incident of ASB, but the landlord had not responded. He said it was an ongoing issue within the block and he felt the landlord had not done anything about it.
5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. It said it had spoken to the resident’s tenancy advisor, who was aware of the ASB within the block. It said it had asked a member of the tenancy management team to contact the resident by 21 June 2023 to provide him with an update.
6. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. It said it had investigated the resident’s reports of alleged harassment and liaised with the police and other agencies. It said it had tried to contact the resident and it had left voicemails and sent emails. It also offered to visit the resident at home on 10 August 2023.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

8. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Specifically details of all the ASB cases it had opened, and the actions taken in each of those cases. However, the landlord has only provided limited information. This has significantly affected our investigation. It has made it difficult to establish when reports of ASB were made, and what (if any) actions the landlord took.
9. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Scope of investigation

10. The resident’s complaint includes concerns he has raised about the police. We are only able to consider the actions of the landlord in this investigation. Some reference may be made within this report as to the actions of the police to provide overall context to the case. However, these actions will not be considered as part of the assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

11. When a landlord receives reports of ASB, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to both parties to gather their version of events, speaking to witnesses and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then need to determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis.
12. The purpose of this investigation is for us to decide whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. We will also look at whether its actions were fair and reasonable. We will not decide whether ASB took place, or which party in any dispute was responsible.
13. The landlord’s community safety policy is not clear or detailed. There are no timescales for responses to complainants. There are no thresholds given as to when an ASB case will be opened, or when action will be taken in response to reports of ASB. The policy does not refer to the landlord’s use of action plans or risk assessments following reports of ASB. This has made it difficult to establish whether the landlord’s actions and responses to the resident’s reports have been fully in line with its policy.
14. The resident reported several incidents of ASB to the landlord in June 2022. The incidents involved tenants of the landlord and other individuals who did not live at the block. The reports were of verbal abuse, harassment and threats of violence. The resident also reported incidents of domestic abuse between a resident and another individual.
15. In response, the landlord sign-posted the resident to mental health support agencies and submitted an internal application for consideration that the resident be considered for a management transfer.
16. At this time, the evidence shows the resident did not want the landlord to pursue the alleged perpetrators under its community safety policy due to concerns of further incidents of ASB. The landlord opened an ASB case on 29 June 2022 and told the resident it had approved his transfer request.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2022. He reported noise from dogs barking continuously in the children’s play area and fly tipping in the bin area. He also told the landlord he was concerned that some of his reports would have to be disclosed to the alleged perpetrators. He asked the landlord not to disclose his reports due to his concerns of reprisals.
18. The landlord responded on 6 July 2022 and asked the resident how it could help with the ongoing ASB. It said it could contact the alleged perpetrators individually, although it was aware of the resident’s concerns of being identified. The resident told the landlord on 6 July 2022 he did not want it to contact the alleged perpetrators. The landlord said it would continue to check in with the resident. This was a reasonable response given the resident had made it clear he did not want any action taking at that time.
19. The resident reported further incidents of ASB on 10 and 11 July 2022. He told the landlord about an incident of domestic abuse, vandalism of a vehicle, persistent dog barking and shouting. He also told the landlord that a resident and their friends were drinking alcohol in the children’s play area over the weekend. He said the block was not suitable for older people due to the predatory nature of some of the people that lived there.
20. The landlord responded on 11 July 2022 and asked the resident when it could discuss the most recent incidents with him. There is no evidence to show the resident responded to the landlord’s request.
21. The resident reported a further incident of ASB on 16 July 2022. He said another resident and a group of their friends had shouted up at his flat and verbally abused him. He asked the landlord to issue a tenancy warning to the alleged perpetrator. The resident also reported the incident to the police.
22. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2022 and asked to speak to someone about the incidents of ASB he had reported. The landlord responded on the same day by email. It said it had contacted the alleged perpetrator, as asked, and informed them of the allegations of verbal abuse.
23. It said the alleged perpetrator had denied being involved in the ASB. However, the landlord had asked them to stop their behaviour. It said, if the behaviour continued, it would issue a tenancy warning. This was in line with the landlord’s community safety policy which says the landlord will “attempt to resolve issues without the need for legal interventions where possible but will use all the legislative powers available if the evidence supports its use”.
24. The landlord also informed the resident that it had received counter allegations from the alleged perpetrator that he was continually “looking out of the window to provoke a reaction” from other residents and their visitors. It asked the resident to “avoid contact which may provoke a negative reaction”.
25. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what the landlord meant by this. However, its response suggests it was placing an element of blame on the resident for the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour, which was unfair in the circumstances. This is because the resident should be able to look out of his window without repercussions.
26. The landlord offered the resident an alternative property on or around 18 August 2022. However, the resident refused the property on the basis that the area was unsuitable.
27. The resident reported further incidents of ASB on 21 September 2022. He told the landlord the police had been called and they had arrested the alleged perpetrator, who was a tenant.
28. The resident’s mental health advocate contacted the landlord on 27 September 2022. They asked the landlord for an action plan in relation to the resident, as he was unsure how his case would be moving forward. The landlord’s community safety policy does not say whether it will complete action plans with residents as part of the ASB process. However, this was not an unreasonable request. There is no evidence to show whether the landlord considered or responded to the request for an action plan.
29. The evidence shows the landlord closed the ASB case on 28 December 2022. This was because the matter was marked as “resolved” as there was no ongoing nuisance. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the behaviour of the alleged perpetrators stopped, or whether the resident stopped reporting incidents.
30. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2023. He reported he had been assaulted by a visitor to the block. He also reported the incident to the police. The evidence shows the landlord agreed to look at the timeline of events and consider what actions it could take.
31. There is no evidence to show the landlord opened an ASB case, or that it considered what actions it could take. Although the landlord’s policy does not specifically say under which circumstances it will open an ASB case, it would be a standard industry response to open a case in these circumstances.
32. There is also no evidence to show the landlord considered any ongoing risk to the resident. This was unreasonable in the circumstances given his vulnerabilities, the number of reported incidents since June 2022, and the level of threats made towards him. The Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance for frontline professionals states “it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour”.
33. The resident received a threat to life warning notice from the police on 27 January 2023. These notices are issued by the police to an individual when they have intelligence indicating an immediate threat to a person’s life.
34. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 January 2023 about his reports of ASB. The landlord said it would look at the timeline of events and consider what actions it could take next. However, there is no evidence to show that it did this.
35. The resident informed the landlord on 1 February 2023 of a possible witness to the alleged assault on 9 January 2023. He also said he had a recording of a call confirming the name of the alleged perpetrator of the assault. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered contacting the witness or that it reviewed the recording of the call.
36. There is also no evidence to show the landlord contacted the police to see whether there were any ongoing enquiries in relation to the alleged assault. This was not in line with its community safety policy which says, “we will always seek to work in partnership with other agencies where it is possible to do so, and we will focus on resolving ASB and community safety problems having regard to the full range of tools and legal powers available”.
37. The evidence shows the landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone on 13 February 2023 and left a voicemail message. It sent an email to the resident on 20 February 2023. However, the content of the email related to an earlier incident alleged to have occurred on 4 October 2022. The landlord did not refer to the resident’s reports of the alleged assault on 9 January 2023, or the threat to life notice issued by the police.
38. At some point prior to 11 April 2023 the landlord offered the resident another management move property, which he refused. This shows the landlord was taking some steps towards assisting and supporting the resident to move away from the alleged perpetrators.
39. The resident reported an incident of ASB on 23 May 2023. He told the landlord a group of people, some who were tenants, were drinking alcohol at the front of the block whilst sat on the benches on 22 May 2023. The resident said there was a strong smell of cannabis, shouting and foul language. He also said a dog had been locked in the children’s play area. The resident said the behaviour was a regular occurrence, which many tenants found intimidating.
40. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 May 2023. He said he had reported ASB to the landlord and the police. He said he had been told he would receive a response within 2 working days, but the landlord had not contacted him. He said there was an ongoing issue at his block and he felt the landlord had not done anything about it.
41. The resident reported a further incident of ASB to the landlord on 7 June 2023. He said he had heard shouting and swearing. He said he saw a male behaving in an aggressive manner, shouting at people walking past. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on the same day. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord agreed to investigate the resident’s reports or take any action.
42. The landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone on 9 June 2023. As there was no response, it left a voicemail message asking the resident to return the call.
43. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. It said it had asked a member of the tenancy management team to contact the resident by 21 June 2023. It asked the resident to let it know whether he had any support needs, so it could make any necessary adjustments. It also said it could ask the tenancy advisor to provide additional communication if required. However, the response did not address the resident’s specific concerns that the landlord had not dealt with his reports of ongoing ASB at his block.
44. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 June 2023. He asked the landlord to issue a warning letter to 3 named individuals who were harassing him. He said he had evidence of the harassment should the landlord wish to see it.
45. The resident reported a further incident of ASB on 20 June 2023. He said he had been verbally abused by another resident. The landlord responded on 21 June 2023 and said his enquiry had been sent to the tenancy team who would contact him within 5 working days. The landlord tried to contact the resident again on 23 June 2023 and 27 June 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023. He said he had received voicemail messages from the landlord. However, he had tried to return the call but he could not get through on the main telephone number.
46. The evidence shows the communication between the landlord and resident was poor throughout this case. There are multiple occasions where the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and by email to report incidents of ASB and to speak to the person dealing with his case. However, on these occasions the landlord gave the resident its standard response, that he would be contacted within 5 working days. This meant that, due to difficulties both parties had in answering and making calls, the landlord did not have contact with the resident for weeks at a time.
47. As the resident is vulnerable, and some of the incidents he reported were of a threatening nature, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to provide the resident with alternative contact details. This could have been the specific email address or telephone number of someone who could address his concerns more promptly. Had the landlord done this, it would have reduced the resident’s frustration and his concerns that nothing was being done to help him.
48. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023. He said the police had warned a named individual and asked them not to contact him following the incident on 20 June 2023. He said, later that day, that same person was shouting abuse up at his window. He asked the landlord if it was going to do anything to help him.
49. The landlord’s community safety policy says it will “always seek to work in partnership with other agencies where it is possible to do so and focus on resolving ASB and community safety problems having regard to the full range of tools and legal powers available”. Yet in this case there is no evidence to show the landlord attempted to work in partnership with the police.
50. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord took a proactive approach to partnership working such as asking the police to complete joint visits to both the resident and the alleged perpetrators. There is no evidence of a joint approach utilising both the landlord’s and the police powers to resolve the ASB. The evidence shows the absence of a joint approach led to missed opportunities to support the resident. Had the landlord worked closely with the police in this case, it may have been able to resolve the issues for the resident much sooner, and without the need for a management move.
51. The landlord reviewed CCTV footage from the block on 13 July 2023. Although, based on the evidence provided, it appears the landlord checked the footage from 4 July 2023, rather than 28 June 2023 when the incident had occurred. The landlord said it could not verify the incident from the footage. However, it did contact the alleged perpetrator of the incident, who denied the allegations.
52. The community safety policy says the landlord will “use CCTV where justified and appropriate in line with current legislation and guidelines governing its use”. Although checking the CCTV was reasonable in the circumstances, the evidence shows the landlord’s investigation relied heavily or solely on the CCTV footage from the block. CCTV is only 1 method of corroborating incidents.
53. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord conducted or explored any additional investigation into the incident, such as contacting other residents within the block to gather evidence and further information. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to show it was proactively investigating the resident’s reports.
54. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. It said:
    1. It had investigated the alleged harassment and it had liaised with the police and other partner agencies.
    2. It had a record of the tenancy advisor trying to make contact on 19 and 27 June 2023. It had followed this up with an email as it was policy not to provide customers with tenancy advisors mobile phone numbers.
    3. It would review any CCTV footage based on reported incidents in line with data handling and GDPR.
    4. It worked in partnership with and supported other agencies, where needed, when investigating ASB. It would like to work with the resident and a partner agency to offer support.
    5. It asked the tenancy advisor to continue to respond to any further reports of ASB and to contact the resident to provide support and gather information.
    6. It offered a home visit with the tenancy team lead and head of tenancy management on 10 August 2023 to discuss support requirements and any other matters.
    7. There had been a range of reported incidents of ASB over a 12 month period. It had approved a management move and made 2 offers of alternative accommodation. It had followed up on all reported incidents directly or through working in partnership.
55. The landlord’s response shows that, although it appropriately offered the resident support and offered a home visit with senior members of staff, it did not recognise its failings in investigating the resident’s reports of ASB.
56. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord. However, the landlord approved a further management move on 3 January 2024. The resident moved into his new property on 1 July 2024, away from the block.
57. In summary, although the landlord offered the resident support, there were failings in the way it responded to the resident’s reports. It did not always act in line with its community safety policy. It did not show it had fully investigated the resident’s reports of ASB. It acted unfairly at times and did not follow up on promises to consider appropriate actions. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout the case.
58. It did not effectively work in partnership with the police or other agencies in an effort to resolve the ASB. There was no evidence it took the threat to life issued to the resident seriously or that it assessed the risk to the resident due to the ongoing incidents. These failings show an overall lack of empathy and understanding of the resident’s situation. As a result, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. An order for compensation calculated in line with our remedies guidance is made below.

Determination

59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

60. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £375 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
61. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

62. It is recommended that the landlord consider reviewing its contact arrangements for victims and witnesses of ASB by providing a dedicated reporting number or email address. This will ensure that victims and witnesses are able to speak to their case officer or a member of the team within a reasonable period of time.
63. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.