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

Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202225256)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225256

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

16 May 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 response to the resident’s complaint about:
    1. Its handling of issues with the:
      1. Communal aerial.
      2. Guttering.
      3. Communal window.
    2. Her reports about parking issues.
    3. Its use of its reasonable behaviour policy.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Reports about parking issues.

  1. The Scheme states at paragraph 42.l that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. In her stage 2 escalation the resident complained that the landlord had told the Ombudsman in a previous investigation that it had sent a letter to all residents about parking. She requested that it provide her with a copy of the letter, as she considered it had lied to us.
  3. We have previously considered the time period and the landlord’s handling of parking issues during the period it said it sent a letter to all residents. Our investigation considered the landlord’s evidence to support that it had sent a letter to all residents. Therefore, this complaint relates to an issue and period that we have already decided upon.
  4. Because of this, in these circumstances and in line with paragraph 42.l, this issue will not be considered in this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives by herself in a 3 bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2022 about concerns it had with the content and frequency of her communication with it. It warned her that if this continued it may take action to manage her communication.
  3. The resident raised several stage 1 complaints with the landlord in September 2022. On 29 September 2022, the landlord declined to accept the resident’s complaints, for several reasons which it explained. It restricted her access to its complaint process, but it removed this restriction on 22 December 2022. It advised that if she repeated her previous pattern of behaviour, it would reconsider limiting her access.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint through the Service on 8 September 2023. Her complaint was about repair issues to the communal TV aerial, guttering and a communal window. She complained that someone constantly smoked outside this. She also raised issues with parking, the landlord’s decision to restrict her access to the complaint process, and anti social behaviour (ASB). We asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 29 September 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 September 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the TV aerial, parking, and its decision to restrict her access to the complaints process. It partially upheld her complaints regarding repairs to her gutters and the communal window. It apologised for the delay in repairing the window and said it had arranged to complete repairs within 28 days, along with placing a no smoking sign on the window. It said it had received quotes to replace the roof and gutters at her building, and it would update residents on the scope of the works and timeframes.
  6. The landlord said that it was dealing with the resident’s allegations of her neighbour fly tipping under an open ASB case and said the Ombudsman had already investigated its handling of previous ASB cases. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 October 2023. She was dissatisfied with its response and said there were new ASB issues that had not been considered by the Ombudsman.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2023. It maintained the explanations and decisions it provided at stage 1. It said that it had now fixed the lock on the communal window and placed a no smoking sign outside of this window. It apologised for the issues the resident had raised.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to all issues raised and asked us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the resident’s correspondence with the landlord and the Service, she has explained that she believed the landlord has discriminated against her, because of both her race and disability. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident.
  2. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident raised new and historic issues that she did not raise in her stage 1 complaint in September 2023. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), when a resident raises additional complaints after the stage 1 response has been issued, the landlord should treat this as a separate complaint. This investigation will consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in that regard, but will not consider the specific issues themselves, because that would need to be the focus of a new investigation.

Repairs to the communal aerial.

  1. The resident complained to the landlord that it declined her contractor access to her building to fix a fault with the communal aerial on 24 January 2022. The aerial fault was affecting her home, and she believed the landlord refused the access out of spite towards her.
  2. The landlord explained it had reviewed its records and spoken to its neighbourhood team. It disputed that it had denied the contractor access and said there was no evidence of this. It considered that there had been miscommunication about how the contractor could access the property. It said that it would not deny any of its contractor’s access to its properties to complete repairs.
  3. The resident provided us with text messages between her and the contractor dated October 2023. The contractor explained that after checking the signal in her building, he believed the only way to resolve the issue was to adjust the communal TV system. However, after telling the estate manager, they could not allow him to do this, as he was not an approved contractor.
  4. We have seen no evidence that the resident provided this text message exchange to the landlord for it to review, and the message is dated more than 18 months after the event. Therefore, it did not have the opportunity to investigate and respond to it. Nonetheless, the message shows the specific reason why the contractor was not given access. The landlord was responsible for completing communal repairs. Therefore, it would arrange any repairs required to the communal aerial and would need to approve any adjustments to it, rather than a tenant arranging the work themselves.
  5. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it had no evidence at the time that it had declined the contractor access to the building. The subsequent evidence from the resident confirms that the contractor was not given access, but for specific and understandable reasons.

Repairs to the resident’s gutters.

  1. The evidence shows that a complaint the resident made on 26 September 2022 included an issue with her gutters. She said this was causing damp in her property and that she had previously complained about this in August 2022. We have seen no evidence that the resident complained about this in August 2022. The landlord declined to accept this complaint due to the restriction on the resident’s access to its complaint process. However, it said it would provide a response to this issue outside of its complaint process. We have seen no evidence that it did this.
  2. The resident complained in September 2023 about an ongoing issue with her gutters, which she said was causing damp and mould. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been ongoing issues with the roof and gutters at the resident’s property. It said it had completed repairs over the years, but these had not fixed the issue. It explained that it had completed a full survey and that several contractors had quoted for installing a new roof and gutters. It said that it was reviewing these quotes and that it would keep residents updated regarding the scope of work and timescales for completion.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that there was an ongoing issue with the roof and gutters and that it intended to replace these. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident had raised this issue in a previous complaint. While it had not accepted the complaint at the time, it had promised to address the issue, and there is no evidence of it doing so. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and apologised for any delay in it taking appropriate action, such as explaining how the resident could report a repair to it.
  4. The landlord said in its complaint responses in 2023 that it would keep residents updated with the scope of works and timescales to replace the roof and gutters. It did not provide any timescales, and work of this nature does not have any timescales in the landlord’s repair policy. The duration of such projects can be impacted by various factors, such planning and budgeting for the work. However, the landlord was still obliged by its repair obligations to respond to any related problems reported to it until it could resolve the gutter issue.
  5. In this case, the evidence shows that residents reported at least 3 gutter-related issues in April, May, and August 2023, to which the landlord responded and addressed within 1 to 23 days. The landlord was therefore acting reasonably in regard to reports by residents, even while the overarching gutter problem was awaiting resolution.
  6. The resident complained that the gutter issue had caused damp and mould in her home. In its response, the landlord said that it had checked its records and could find no record of the resident reporting issues with damp and mould to it. It recommended that the resident contact its customer service team to report any issues, so that it could arrange to complete any works required.
  7. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanation, insofar as there is no evidence of the resident reporting such problems prior to her complaint. The landlord cannot determine the cause of damp and mould or how to resolve this without completing an inspection. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to request that the resident reports this issue to the correct team for it to arrange an investigation and repairs.
  8. Overall, the landlord acknowledged that there was an ongoing gutter issue and provided an update on how it planned to resolve this. However, it failed to identify that the resident had previously raised this in 2022, and it had not responded to this as agreed. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint did not put things right.

Issues with the communal window.

  1. The resident complained to the landlord in August and September 2022 that the lock on the communal window outside her flat door was broken and people were smoking outside it. She asked the landlord to confirm when it would fix the lock and to put up a no smoking sign. The landlord declined to accept this complaint due to it restricting the resident’s access to its complaint process. However, it advised on 29 September 2022 that it would provide a response to the lock issue outside of its complaint process.
  2. In its 2023 formal complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it had not fixed the lock on the window. It apologised and said it had raised a new order to complete this work. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed this work on 12 October 2023. It also explained it had installed no smoking warnings in September 2023 and provided evidence of them for this investigation.
  3. In her complaint to us, the resident disputed that the landlord repaired the lock or placed an additional no smoking sign on her communal window. Nonetheless, the landlord’s repair records support its explanation about the lock. The specific location of the smoking signs is not entirely clear from the evidence, but the decision on where to place such warnings is for the landlord to make. No evidence of the resident raising this issue again with the landlord has been seen. If new or further problems have arisen with the window lock, or with smoke ingress into the building the resident should report the matters to the landlord, and she then has the option of making a new complaint if she remains dissatisfied with its subsequent actions.
  4. Overall, there was a significant delay in the landlord repairing the communal window lock, for which it apologised. There is no evidence that the delay caused the resident any clear or specific detriment, but the implied lack of security from a window lock repair over a lengthy period was an understandable cause for concern. Because of that, the landlord’s acknowledgement, apology, and resolving the issue were not enough to fully remedy the failing, leaving the complaint only partly resolved.

Use of its reasonable behaviour policy.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that where it considers the actions of a resident to be unacceptable, it retains the right to restrict their access to its complaint process. Its policy provides examples of unacceptable behaviour, such as making unjustified complaints about its staff, unreasonable amounts of contact and being abusive to its staff. Its policy states that the landlord will provide a warning, asking the resident to change their behaviour, with it issuing a final warning and restriction if the behaviour continues.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about it restricting her access to its complaint process in 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2022 regarding her behaviour. It reminded her of previous warnings it had provided and why it considered her behaviour unacceptable. It explained that it was keen to understand her frustrations with it and offered a meeting. It said that if the resident decided not to engage with it, it may proceed to take formal action.
  3. In September 2022, the resident raised 5 separate complaints with the landlord. These complaints included allegations of discrimination, victimisation, racial bias and lying by its staff. It emailed the resident on 29 September 2022 and explained that in line with its complaint policy, it had made the decision not to accept the complaints. It said that her recent correspondence with it had at times been aggressive, unreasonable, and directly targeted its staff members and another resident. It explained that she had provided no evidence to support her allegations.
  4. It also explained that she had continued to refer to matters that it had addressed as part of other complaints. In addition, she had repeatedly used its complaint process to raise issues of ASB and make new service requests. It provided examples of times when it considered she had failed to cooperate with its attempts to investigate concerns she had raised. Due to all of this, it had decided to restrict her access to the complaints process for 3 months. It removed this restriction on 22 December 2022.
  5. In its 2023 complaint responses, the landlord explained that it had previously provided its rationale for restricting her access to its complaint process. It said that it considered it had acted in line with its policies.
  6. The landlord’s response was appropriate, as it had acted in line with its policy. It provided the resident with a warning before placing a restriction on her. It also provided details and examples of why it considered the residents behaviour was in breach of its policy. It reviewed and removed this restriction within the timescale stated in its restriction letter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In her complaint to us, the resident said that the landlord did not respond to her stage 2 complaint within its published timescale of 20-working days or notify her of an extension. The landlord in its final complaint response said that it emailed her on 13 November 2023 to notify her that it was asking for a 10 working day extension.
  2. The evidence provided confirms that the landlord emailed the resident on 13 November 2023 to explain that it held a panel meeting that day. It said it would be applying for an extension, and it would provide its response by 29 November 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated, to notify her of an extension and to respond by the date stated. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident introduced new and historic issues to her complaint. She said the landlord had not dealt with her complaints about its staff or previous stage 1 complaints she had made in 2022. She also said it failed to deal with issues of ASB she had raised, referring to historic incidents and more recent incidents, between July 2022 to August 2023. In her complaint to us, she disputed that we had previously investigated the issues of ASB she had raised, as the landlord stated in its complaint responses.
  4. In its final complaint response, the landlord did not address or respond to the new and historic issues the resident raised. In line with the Code, the landlord should have created a new separate complaint to consider the new issues and points the resident raised, and explained why it would not investigate the historic issues. It did not do this.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord declined to respond to a complaint about its handling of ASB cases and a fly tipping complaint. It said that the Ombudsman had reached a determination on its handling of ASB and that it was currently dealing with the fly tipping issue under its ASB policy.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it would not investigate issues already determined by us. It was also reasonable for it to explain that it was dealing with the fly tipping issue under its ASB policy, as this was a report by the resident, not a complaint about its handling of the matter.
  7. The resident’s complaints and circumstances appear to be complex, and the landlord generally acted reasonably in the manner it handled them. Nonetheless, it did not respond in line with the Code to the new and historic issues she raised at stage 2 which was a failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint about:
    1. Its handling of repairs to the communal aerial.
    2. Its use of its reasonable behaviour policy.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint about:
    1. Its handling of repairs to the gutters.
    2. Issues with the communal window.
    3. Its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 in relation to the service failures identified in its response to the gutters and window issues.
    2. £100 in relation to the failures identified with its complaint handling.
  2. In light of the failing identified in paragraph 46, within 8 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to respond to the new and historic issues the resident introduced in her stage 2 escalation on 20 October 2023. It must either investigate the issues and respond to them or explain why it will not investigate them. In doing so it must pay careful attention to the expectations set out in the Code and its complaint policy.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.