Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202226726)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226726

GreenSquareAccord Limited

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by a neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom first floor flat, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her 2 young children.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in 2021 and 2022, stating that her neighbour and their visitors were causing ASB. Her reports included drug dealing and smoking cannabis in the hallway, leaving rubbish and laundry on the landing, visitors causing noise late at night, and uncontrolled dogs.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 January 2023. She said that there had been ongoing ASB from her neighbour for 10 years. It had opened and closed numerous ASB cases without resolution. Her complaint included the same concerns as set out above.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 February 2023. It had discussed her concerns with the Housing Officer, who said they had thoroughly investigated her reports in line with its procedures. It found no evidence of any untoward behaviour and there was no action to take at the time.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 February 2023. She said her complaint included the names and addresses of other residents experiencing the same issues, but it failed to consider it was a group complaint. She had expected an investigation and opinion on its handling of her reports.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 2 March 2023. It only responded to the resident, as she was the one who made the complaint. It repeated its stage 1 response and said it would manage her ongoing concerns through its ASB policy. This was because its complaint policy excluded reports of ASB.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted it to take action against her neighbour and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the landlord failed to consider how the situation had affected her health. She believed the stress had caused her diagnosis of fibromyalgia.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. The resident’s complaint that the stress of the situation had caused fibromyalgia, is better dealt with via the court.
  3. In her complaint the resident said that her neighbour had been causing ASB for 10 years. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They could then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how a landlord responds. This has limited the extent to which we can investigate.
  4. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, to see if it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. This investigation has focused on the events leading up to the landlord’s final response on 2 March 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of ASB

  1. The Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that ASB is conduct which:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the above definition. It says that ASB and criminal activity include dealing in illegal drugs, harassment, verbal abuse, and disorder arising from alcohol abuse. It works with other agencies such as the police and will use a range of informal and formal intervention measures that are reasonable and proportionate to the ASB. It will not investigate one-off incidents such as dogs barking, actions which are everyday activities, or lifestyle differences.
  3. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlords service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  4. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when receiving reports of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  5. In January 2021 the resident reported that her neighbour was causing ASB (as set out above). The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, and an action plan. It visited the neighbour who admitted their visitors had smoked cannabis in their flat. They asked for support to prevent the multiple visitors staying in their home.
  6. Between February and December 2021, the resident made 27 further reports. This included verbal abuse from visitors, uncontrolled dogs, and an incident where 2 visitors had a physical altercation. Over the period, the landlord and police carried out multiple visits to the neighbour who agreed to an acceptable behaviour agreement in October 2021. It updated her of the actions it had taken and said it found no evidence of drugs or drug dealing during its visits. The evidence she sent only showed people entering and leaving the flat.
  7. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. It demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s concerns and took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the neighbour’s behaviour. It also had an obligation to consider any vulnerabilities and offer support. The use of drugs and drug dealing is a criminal activity. It was reasonable for it to rely on the police findings to determine what action it could take.
  8. In January 2022 the resident made further reports that her neighbour was drug dealing. The landlord said it would visit with the police but the evidence she provided did not support this. It showed the neighbour’s visitors coming and going from the property. It offered to visit her at home to discuss her concerns. Between April and September 2022 there were no further reports, and it closed the case.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 October 2022 listing multiple names and vehicle registrations. She said the named individuals were either drug dealers or customers. The landlord responded the same day and said it would visit the neighbour with the police. It said that everyone could have visitors, and it had been unable to prove that drug dealing was taking place.
  10. The landlord visited the neighbour on 7 October 2022 and discussed its concerns about their visitors. It updated the resident and said that the neighbour admitted that things had “gone crazy” and there had been a lot of visitors. It gave advice about the individuals. The police agreed they were not dealing or using drugs. There had been an increased police presence and investigation of county lines, however, this did not relate to her neighbour or their visitors. The neighbour was aware of the reports and that their lifestyle was different to hers. It would visit the neighbour again and continue to monitor.
  11. The resident made further reports in November 2022, again naming multiple individuals and stating they were dealing “crack, heroin, and meth”. The landlord responded and asked her to send her evidence to the police. Its case notes from December 2022 state that it spoke with another occupant of the block who said that it had been “a bit wild” in the summer with lots of visitors but this had since stopped. The police were making a further visit but agreed that “meth” was not being made in the neighbour’s home.
  12. The landlord carried out a further visit to the neighbour on 9 December 2022. The flat was clean and tidy and their partner was decorating. It noted that there was no sign of drugs in the property.
  13. In the resident’s complaint she said there had been a large number of calls made to the police and to the landlord. Its Housing Officer had closed every ASB case within 2 to 3 months. Each time covering up the real issue and making accusations against her and other neighbours.
  14. In its stage 1 response the landlord thanked the resident for letting it know about the alleged ASB and issues she and her neighbours were experiencing. It found no evidence of untoward behaviour and no further action was needed at the time. As a result of its investigation, the complaint was not upheld. It was satisfied that it had carried out appropriate investigations in line with its internal process and procedures. It hoped that this reassured her that the matter had been properly and fairly reviewed.
  15. The landlord’s response was brief and did not demonstrate that it had carried out an investigation. It would have been reasonable to have explained the actions it had taken and its ASB process. It should also have explained how it would manage her concerns going forward.
  16. Matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident. It missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations or explain why it may not have been able to take action.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2023. She said that it failed to recognise that it was a group complaint, and she was disappointed that its response was over a month since she made it. She had been expecting at least a small investigation about how it had handled the reports. She said its officer “turned a blind eye” to the incidents. After its visit on 7 February 2023, “there was a flood of people coming and using drugs”. She said that 3 drug dealers had visited with 1kg of marijuana in bin bags. The visitors had large amounts of drugs and alcohol in their luggage. There had been violent behaviour, unacceptable language, and the communal areas were a “disgrace”.
  18. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the outcome the resident wanted was for her neighbour to be evicted or be moved to a property outside the neighbourhood. It addressed its response to her as she had raised the complaint. It had not received any correspondence from her neighbours, therefore due to GDPR, it was unable to share the detail of her complaint. It apologised for not explaining this in its initial response and for any distress. If her neighbours wanted to raise their concerns, they would need to contact the Housing Officer.
  19. The landlord repeated its stage 1 response that it was satisfied her concerns had been investigated appropriately. Its complaint process excluded reports of ASB, and it would manage her ongoing issues via its ASB policy. It forwarded her concerns to its housing team to make contact within 10 days.
  20. The landlord’s response again failed to demonstrate that it had undertaken any reasonable investigation. Its exclusion of ASB complaints was not appropriate and is discussed later in this report. It should have reviewed the actions it had taken, explained its process, and how it had managed her reports.
  21. While the landlord’s complaint response was not appropriate, the actions it had taken up to its final response were reasonable. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. It worked closely with the police to investigate her concerns. While the resident had submitted a significant number of photographs and videos, it was not sufficient to prove her allegations. As drug dealing is a criminal activity, it was reasonable for it to rely on the police opinion.
  22. The landlord completed risk assessments, action plans, regularly visited the neighbour, and put an acceptable behaviour agreement in place. It could have considered conducting ASB surveys or restricting access to specific individuals. But this would have been challenging without appropriate evidence to enable it to obtain a court order. We appreciate that many visitors would likely have been disturbing to the resident and her family, but without sufficient evidence, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take.
  23. Following the landlord’s final response, its tenancy enforcement team wrote to the resident in March 2023. It reviewed the photographs and information the resident sent from August 2022 to March 2023. It said it showed people entering and leaving the property. Despite the large volume of material sent, it could not see any ASB or illegal activity. It listed the dates the resident had made reports and number of visits on each date. The evidence did not show excessive “comings and goings” which were the usual hallmark of a property being suspected of misuse. It had investigated her “serious allegations” numerous times which had at that point been unfounded. It had been unable to substantiate her allegations of drugs.
  24. Between March 2023 and July 2023, the resident made in excess of 50 reports. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to review the evidence and liaise with her.
  25. In the landlord’s explanation to us it said that there was insufficient evidence at the time of the resident’s complaint to take enforcement action. However, due to events following its final response, it had taken legal action against the neighbour and obtained a 2-year injunction with specific restrictions. The resident told us that the situation is ongoing. She has reported breaches of the injunction to the landlord and police who are looking to take further action.
  26. In summary, we find that the landlord appropriately acted on the resident’s reports of ASB and make a finding of no maladministration.

Associated complaint

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 4–step complaint process. Its initial step was to resolve the complaint informally within 2 days. In steps 2 and 3 it would investigate and respond within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Step 4 refers to the right to bring the matter to us. Since the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory in April 2024, it published a revised 2-stage complaints process which is now compliant with the Code.
  2. There were a number of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. In its stage 1 response it said it received the resident’s complaint on 9 February 2023. But the evidence shows that she complained on 1 January 2023 and chased responses on 30 January and 2 February 2023. It responded on 23 February 2023, 27 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy, at the time, excluded reports of ASB, nuisance, hate crime, and harassment. This was not appropriate or in line with the Code. Paragraph 2.2 of the Code states that a complaints policy must set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint or escalated, and these circumstances must be fair and reasonable to residents. Acceptable exclusions include matters which occurred over 12 months ago, where legal proceedings have started, or where matters have previously been considered under the complaint policy. As the landlord excluded ASB from its complaints policy, its responses were dismissive and showed no empathy.
  4. The resident said that her complaint was a group complaint which included the names and email addresses of 4 of her neighbours. The landlord’s complaint policy says that if multiple customers make a complaint, it may send its response to each customer or just the petition organiser. In this instance it sent its response to the resident. This was in line with its policy.
  5. However, in its stage 1 response it acknowledged the resident’s reports of alleged ASB that she and her neighbours were experiencing. It also said in its stage 2 response that it could not share the detail of her complaint due to GDPR. But it wrote to 3 other occupants on 2 March 2023 stating that its complaint policy excluded ASB. Its records also show that its ASB case included the names of other neighbours as complainants. This was not helpful and would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. It would have been reasonable to have contacted the other named residents to confirm their wish to raise a complaint and discuss their concerns.
  6. In the landlord’s explanation to us it acknowledged that its complaint handling was not appropriate. It has since amended its complaint policy to show clearly what is an ASB service request and what is a complaint.
  7. For the reasons set out above, we find that the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s complaint and make a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.