Home Group Limited (202323765)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323765

Home Group 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for a move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1‑bedroom, first–floor flat in a terraced building which contains 2 self-contained flats.
The resident moved to the property in October 2002. At the time of the events referred to in this investigation he resided there with his partner. They both have vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. For ease of readability, they are referred to collectively in this report as ‘the resident’, with the male tenant as the lead complainant.
The evidence suggests that a dispute between the resident and his neighbour (also a tenant of the landlord) began in 2017.
On 20 March 2023, the resident reported an ASB incident to the landlord. He said that an unknown male who was visiting the neighbour had banged on his door, threatened to “rip [his] head off”, and damaged his CCTV camera. He stated that he believed that the neighbour had “put [the visitor] up to it”. He told the landlord that the police were called, and the male was removed from the premises.
The resident complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023. He said that he felt “distressed and harassed” by a telephone call he had received that day from the landlord’s housing manager. In later correspondence the resident claimed that he felt this way because the landlord had informed him (following a previous formal complaint) that the housing manager would have no further contact with him.
The resident made a further complaint the following day (24 March 2023). He said that he was unhappy with the “level of care” from the landlord since he had reported the ASB incident and believed it should have responded sooner to the “safeguarding concern”.
The landlord issued a stage 1 “complaint decision” on 11 April 2023. It then provided its stage 1 “outcome” response on 19 April 2023. It provided a timeline of events and said:
1. It had completed an ASB risk assessment within its target timescales on 22 March 2023.
2. At the request of a senior manager, the housing manager contacted the resident on 23 March 2023 to acknowledge receipt of his ASB risk assessment. It accepted that the resident would prefer not to have contact with this staff member and explained that due to circumstances beyond its control, no other housing managers were available at the time.
3. A safeguarding case was not opened, but on 27 March 2023 it had asked the resident if he would like it to make a safeguarding referral to the local council and he had advised that he “would think about it”.
4. The police investigation into the incident on 20 March 2023 was still ongoing and it would provide him with updates when it had received further information from the police.
5. Following the resident’s new reports of ASB on 17 April 2023 (regarding the neighbour “aggressively” banging their sash windows when he was in the yard), investigations were ongoing.
On 8 June 2023, the resident requested to make a new stage 1 complaint. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had refused his request to swap properties.
On 18 June 2023, the resident requested to escalate his original complaint to stage 2. He said:
1. He did not agree with the landlord’s reasoning in its stage 1 response as to why the specific staff member contacted him. He found it “hard to believe” that there was no one else available to call him on that day.
2. He felt his human rights were being violated due to the landlord’s “inaction” to address the ASB, and he was living in “fear and constant stress”.
3. He wanted the landlord to confirm what action it was proposing to take against the neighbour.
The landlord issued a stage 2 “complaint decision” on 18 August 2023. It later provided its “final” stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It said:
1. It apologised to the resident for its complaint handling delays.
2. Following the resident’s reports of ASB on 20 March 2023, it completed an ASB risk assessment on 22 March 2023. It did not raise a “safeguarding concern”, as this was not appropriate in the circumstances.
3. It had appropriately engaged with the police about the ASB incident. The police had informed it that there was no concern for the resident’s ongoing safety as the incident had been categorised as a “low–level minor public order matter”.
4. It apologised to the resident for failing to use its “ASB action plan” template which would have provided him with a plan of what action it was taking.
5. It accepted it should have reminded the neighbour that they were responsible for the behaviour of their visitors.
6. To date, the case remained open with the police. If there was any suggestion of the neighbour’s involvement, it would take appropriate and proportionate action in line with its ASB procedure.
7. Under Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985, the resident was ineligible for a home swap as a possession order (for a noise abatement unrelated to this complaint) had been granted against him by the court.
8. It had sought advice from its legal team regarding the resident’s concerns that it had violated his human rights. It was unable to uphold this element of his complaint as his concerns were considered and rejected by a judge during the possession order court proceedings on 19 July 2023.

Events after the end of the complaints process

Following the possession order court proceedings (referenced earlier), the resident was evicted from the property on 24 November 2023.
On 25 January 2024, the court granted a 2-year injunction order against the neighbour to prevent them from communicating with or harassing the resident.
In May 2025, both parties informed this Service that the police had closed the case, and no charges were made against the neighbour or their visitor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is acknowledged that the tension between the resident and his neighbour was longstanding, and this Service has previously investigated the landlord’s handling of other ASB incidents in case 202002683. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from March 2023 which were considered within its complaint responses. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matters arising).
Part of the resident’s complaint concerns his belief that his rights under Article 8 of Human Rights Act 1998 have been breached by the landlord. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached any of the articles in the 1998 Act. A decision on this can only be made by the courts. We have seen evidence that the resident raised this matter as part of his defence of possession proceedings which were heard in court on 19 July 2023. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
The resident has described how he feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on his household’s health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The resident informed us that as an outcome to the complaint, he wants the landlord to grant a rent rebate for the 6-year period during which he was subject to ASB. Where we find failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. Financial damages are a legal matter, and the representative can obtain legal advice if he wishes to pursue his claim through the courts.
On 8 June 2023, the resident requested to make an additional complaint about a housing manager being involved in a community trigger review (now known as ASB case review). The landlord did not treat this as a formal complaint and provided the resident with an update on its position on 28 June 2023 and 5 July 2023. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this Service will not make an assessment of the landlord’s handling of this issue but will address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances constituted a nuisance. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if its response was fair in all the circumstances.
Within the landlord’s ASB policy, it defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. It further states that it will take appropriate enforcement action against perpetrators where it has sufficient evidence to do so.
The landlord provided us with an extract from the resident’s tenancy agreement in relation to tenant obligations. It is unclear if the extract is also included in the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, but it is reasonable to assume that the general contents will be the same in both agreements. The extract states that members of the household or visitors to the premises should not do anything likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants. This includes threats, acts of violence, and wilful damage.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident reported the ASB incident to the landlord via email on 20 March 2023. As we have not seen documentary evidence of the resident’s email, this is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will use risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities, highlight support needs, and prioritise cases. Its ASB procedure states that it must carry out a risk assessment on ‘personal incidents’ (defined as deliberately targeting and impacting an individual) within 1 working day. The landlord provided us with a copy of the resident’s risk assessment. As it does not include a date to evidence when it was completed, this is a further record keeping failure in its handling of the case. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the risk assessment was completed on 22 March 2023. Although the delay was minimal (2 working days), given the nature of the reports of ASB, we find that the landlord acted inappropriately.
The ASB risk assessment was rated “high risk”, and the resident told the landlord that he believed the ASB incident was associated with 1 of his protected characteristics. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated this matter further or discussed the resident’s specific concerns with the police. Its failure to do so is concerning. Although we have seen no evidence that the police classified the incident as a hate crime, and we acknowledge that the dispute with the neighbour had been ongoing for several years, the landlord should consider every report of ASB on its merits.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that following a report of ASB, it will complete an “action plan” with the reporting party. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed any action or contact plans in this case. Had it done so, it could have regularly reviewed its progress against the action plan with the resident, which would have promoted transparency and given him reassurance that it was taking his reports of ASB seriously. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 2 response for its failure to complete an action plan. It said that its findings would be shared with its local housing team to support improvements in the future. This was appropriate and showed that it was using complaints to introduce positive changes in its service delivery.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord’s housing manager contacted the resident to confirm receipt of his reports of ASB. This was in accordance with its ASB procedure, which states that a housing manager must contact the ASB complainant upon receipt of the case and risk assessment. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not acted as it had previously promised (that following a previous complaint, the housing manager would not contact him again). In the landlord’s complaint responses, it acknowledged the resident’s preference for the housing manager not to deal with his case and explained that there was no other staff member available on 23 March 2023. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no evidence of the landlord’s previous assurance. As our findings must be supported by documentary evidence, we have been unable to make a finding in relation to this. Additionally, if it was the case that the resident had made this request, the landlord was not obliged to accept, as landlords are generally permitted to allocate their resources as they see fit.
Within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 24 March 2023, he said that the landlord had informed him that it had raised an internal safeguarding referral on 23 March 2023. He said he was unhappy that he had called the landlord for an update the following day and had still not received a response. We do not dispute the resident’s claims. However, based on the evidence provided, it is not clear to this Service what the referenced safeguarding referral involved and as we have seen no documentary evidence which references a safeguarding referral on 23 March 2023, we are unable to make an assessment on this matter. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint responses that an internal safeguarding referral was not required and a ASB risk assessment was more appropriate in the circumstances. As we have seen no evidence to suggest the contrary, we find that the landlord’s response to this matter was fair.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that the landlord will work in partnership with the local authority to protect adults who have care and support needs and who are experiencing (or at risk of) abuse and neglect, where they are unable to protect themselves because of their needs. We therefore find it appropriate that on 27 March 2023, the landlord asked the resident if he would like it to make a safeguarding referral to the local council. This shows that the landlord was evidently mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and keen to involve him in decisions about support he received.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord appropriately contacted the neighbour to discuss the allegations made against them and their visitor. It was reasonable that the landlord then informed the resident that it had done so. It is acknowledged that the resident requested further information from the landlord about what it discussed with the neighbour. We find that the landlord’s response to the resident was fair, in that it was limited in the level of update it could share for reasons of data protection.
We find that it was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy for it to work in partnership with the police to investigate the ASB incident. Between 23 March 2023 and 10 November 2023, the landlord requested an update from the police on 16 occasions on the outcome of its ongoing investigations into the incident. This was a positive and proactive action from the landlord.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it “must let the [police investigation conclude before [it] could consider potential impact on the neighbour’s tenancy”. It said its position remained the same within its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2023. While confirming whether the police were going to take legal action against the perpetrator may have strengthened the landlord’s case for enforcement action against the neighbour, we find that the landlord’s stance in this case was inappropriate. This is because it was not obliged to await the outcome of the police investigation before it could act and should have considered the risks associated with doing so.
The resident informed the landlord that he had CCTV footage of the incident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord asked the resident if it could view this footage. The key to effective investigation of ASB is gathering and preserving evidence in support of reports. The fact that the landlord does not appear, based on the available evidence, to have made efforts to gather evidence (aside from contacting the police) indicates that, overall, it did not take the matter sufficiently seriously. It is our opinion that the landlord’s failure to undertake its own comprehensive investigation did not help improve an already strained relationship between the resident and the neighbour.
The police informed the landlord that there was no evidence of violence, no arrest was made on the day of the incident, and the neighbour did not appear to be involved “at all”. The police further confirmed that the incident had been logged as a public order offence and that it would decide if any further action would be taken and determine if it was in the public interest whether to charge. As such, based on this evidence alone, we accept that the landlord may not have been able to take enforcement action against the neighbour. However, given that the police had informed the landlord that the visitor had been “swearing and gesticulating to the [resident’s CCTV] camera”, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to remind the neighbour of their tenancy obligations. Nevertheless, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged this failing within its stage 2 response.
Given that the landlord had identified some of the failings within this report, we find that its lack of appropriate redress at stage 2 was unreasonable and at odds with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right for residents.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. As such, an order of compensation has made in recognition of the failures identified in this report. It has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own guidance on remedies.

The resident’s request for a move

On 3 April 2023, the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on his behalf. The solicitor informed the landlord that following the recent ASB incident, the resident would like to request a “home swap”. They said that there was a vacant property owned by the landlord in the same community, and the resident felt that it would be suitable for his needs.
The landlord discussed the request internally on 13 April 2023. The evidence shows that the property had 2 bedrooms and therefore was “beyond [the resident’s] housing need”. The landlord also noted that the property had major structural issues and would not be ready for occupation for at least 6-12 months. In another email, the landlord referenced that court proceedings involving the resident were ongoing at the time.
The evidence suggests that the landlord responded to the resident’s solicitor and advised the request for a home swap was not an option. As we have not had sight of the response, it is unclear what explanation the landlord gave the solicitor. This calls the landlord’s record keeping into question but does not warrant an adverse finding.
On 8 June 2023, the resident requested to make a complaint about the landlord’s decision to refuse the home swap. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a stage 1 response in relation to this matter. This will be assessed within the complaint handling section of this report.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 November 2023, it maintained that its decision to decline the resident’s request for a home swap was correct. This was because a possession order had made been against him by the court, which made him ineligible for a home swap. Schedule 3 (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange) of the Housing Act 1985 states that a tenant can be refused an exchange of homes if they are subject to an order of the court for the possession of the dwelling of which they are the secure tenant.
As the landlord based its decision on the applicable legislation and explained its reasoning, we find that there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request to swap homes.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales were not possible, the policy stated the landlord would provide a written explanation to the complainant, containing a clear explanation of the expected timescales for the response. If an extension beyond an additional 10 working days was required, this would be agreed with the complainant.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint (that he had made on 24 March 2023) regarding its “level of care” in the handling of his ASB case. This was a response time of 5 working days, and therefore in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, within its acknowledgement email, it failed to reference the complaint the resident had made regarding the telephone call from the housing manager (on 23 March 2023). This was at odds with the Ombudsman’s applicable Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at the time of the complaint, which stipulated that landlords should address all points raised by the complainant. Nevertheless, the landlord did subsequently provide a response 1 to this element of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, which was appropriate.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 “decision” on 11 April 2023 and a further stage 1 “outcome” on 19 April 2023. We find that the landlord acted inappropriately in this instance, as issuing multiple complaint responses is not in line with the Code.
The evidence suggests that the landlord failed to contact the resident on 14 April 2023 as previously agreed with him. This was inappropriate given that the resident had already voiced his concerns about the landlord ignoring him. We acknowledge that the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023 for its lack of contact, which was appropriate. However, we find its justification that it was “best to complete the investigation first” unreasonable. It is our opinion that if the landlord did not have an update on the resident’s complaint, it should have informed him of this at the earliest opportunity.
The applicable Code states that if a resident raises additional complaints after the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. As mentioned earlier in the report, the resident raised 2 new complaints on 8 June 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with a response to his complaint of its handling of his request for a move within its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. However, as this issue had not yet been through stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, we find that it would have been more appropriate for it to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate the issue. We also find that the landlord acted unreasonably as it took 5 months to provide a response to this element of the resident’s complaint.
Although the landlord provided an update to the resident on 2 occasions, it failed to open a formal complaint in relation to his dissatisfaction about the community trigger review. The evidence shows that the landlord “really didn’t want to log another complaint”. This is concerning and at odds with its complaint policy, which stated where it declines to escalate a complaint, it will write to the customer to explain its reasoning and provide them with details of our Service. The landlord’s lack of clarity was confusing for the resident as he believed the landlord had treated the matter as a formal complaint. Additionally, he asked the landlord on numerous occasions for reference numbers for each complaint that he had made, and the landlord was not clear in its correspondence. The importance of effective communication and management of expectations during the complaints process is highlighted.
The landlord’s internal complaint records stated that it received the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 31 July 2023. This was incorrect, as the resident had requested to escalate his initial complaint on 18 June 2023. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we expect landlords to ensure accurate records of complaints are maintained.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on his escalation request on 26 June 2023 and the landlord responded on 27 June 2023. This was 7 working days from the date of the resident’s escalation request and therefore slightly outside of the landlord’s target timescales. It is positive that the landlord set realistic expectations by telling the resident that it would contact him within 8 weeks to discuss the stage 2 complaint. However, as it has not provided any context to why there was an 8–week delay, we find this timescale excessive. There is no indication that the circumstances of this case would make the standard timescales (20 working days) unachievable.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. Within its closing paragraphs it stated that it proposed “to continue to progress the complaint until the outstanding issues were resolved and [it was] in a position to provide a full and final stage 2 response”. The landlord’s reference again to another complaint response was confusing and not in line with the Code. We therefore find that it acted inappropriately.
On 4 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide him with an update on his stage 2 complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to him, which was inappropriate as its complaint policy stated that it will keep customers informed of any progress on their complaint. Internal communications show the landlord’s chaotic handling of the matter and evidence that it was aware of its obligations and need to adhere to its timescales.
The resident also contacted our Service for assistance in October 2023 to obtain responses from the landlord or progress his complaint. This was an additional inconvenience and expenditure of time and effort which should not have been necessary.
The landlord issued its ‘final’ stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. This was unreasonable and at odds with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy, as it was approximately 5 months after the resident had requested to escalate his complaint. The landlord attributed its stage 2 complaint delays to the personal circumstances of its complaint handler. We acknowledge that landlords can face challenges in complaint handling due to the availability of staff. However, we expect them to have robust mechanisms in place to ensure staff leave and absence does not impact complaint handling. Additionally, the Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain what action it had taken to ensure this would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learnt from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint process was confusing and protracted. It sent multiple complaint responses and failed to comply with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy or the Code. It also did not offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
As a result, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused him. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practice under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme in relation to complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to those in the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
  1. £200 for its handling of his reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for its handling of his complaint.