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

Lodge Lane East Co-operative Housing Limited (202400559)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400559

Lodge Lane East Co-operative Housing Limited

28 March 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports concerning antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant at the property of the landlord since October 2014. The resident lives in a house. His house is opposite his neighbour’s property, who is the subject of his ASB reports. The resident has advised this service that he suffers from mental health conditions.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident has been reporting concerns about the behaviour of his neighbour since at least May 2018. At this time, he reported that the neighbour was loudly slamming doors, and he had concerns about his neighbour’s CCTV looking into his property. The landlord made further enquiries at this time, and it is also evident that the matter was raised with the police.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 June 2018. It advised that it had discussed the reports with the neighbour, who had denied deliberately slamming the doors. It also advised that it had inspected the doors to ensure they were functioning correctly and confirmed that they were. It further advised that it would discuss the ongoing issues with its management committee.
  4. The resident continued to make similar reports following the landlord’s response. In December 2021, the landlord noted that the neighbour had raised counter allegations about the resident, including that his mother had damaged their car. The landlord also noted that the police were investigating.
  5. In November 2023, the resident reported that the ASB was continuing, that he believed the neighbour was secretly recording him, and that they were leaving unsightly piles of leaves outside his property. He had also reported the issue to the police and to the local authority. The landlord advised it would investigate the reports in line with its ASB policy and also referred him to Citizen’s Advice for further assistance.
  6. In March 2023, the resident requested updates about the landlord’s investigation and noted that the issues were impacting his mental health. He also advised that the police were not taking action despite the neighbour’s visitors frequently looking at him in an intimidating manner and making a rude gesture at his video doorbell.
  7. On 30 April 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint about the lack of a resolution from the landlord. He also requested a formal action plan to tackle the ongoing ASB. It is not evident that the landlord responded, and so he chased an update on 10 June 2024.
  8. The landlord provided a formal response on 27 September 2024, which included the following:
    1. It noted that the response was in relation to the complaint raised on 30 April 2024.
    2. It advised that complaints relating to ASB were “dealt with under separate policies; therefore, the [landlord] is currently unable to deal with the issue under its complaints procedure.”
    3. It also advised that it was following its ASB procedure but that its investigation had been delayed due to a recent bereavement in the neighbour’s family.
    4. It further noted that there had been counter allegations against the resident.
    5. It concluded that it was currently not considering enforcement action but was continuing to monitor the situation.
    6. Finally, it advised the resident he could refer the complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues he reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted his health.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on him, he has the option to seek legal advice.
  3. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
  4. Additionally, while the Ombudsman notes that the issues have been ongoing since at least 2018, this investigation will focus on the events which have occurred within the 12 months preceding the resident’s formal complaint in April 2024. This is because of the need to carry out an effective investigation, which is not possible for events beyond 12 months due to the availability of evidence from that period.

ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy notes it will seek to resolve ASB using a range of remedies prior to considering enforcement action. It will also work with partner agencies to tackle ASB. It may also consider mediation or acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) to address ongoing concerns.
  2. Not every instance of behaviour reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. 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. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  3. Additionally, 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 and best practice 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.
  4. While the landlord’s ASB policy as provided to this service does not specifically reference action plans, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that in instances of ASB, it is best practice to set out an action plan when investigating ASB. This will help target the investigation and measure a resident’s expectations about any outcomes. In this case, it is evident that over a lengthy period of time, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it was monitoring the situation and considering what steps it would take. This began in 2018, when it advised its management committee would discuss the issues. It is not evident the resident ever received a response to this promise, despite requesting one as part of his later complaint.
  5. On several occasions throughout the period of the complaint and specifically as part of his formal complaint on 30 April 2024, the resident noted he had not been provided with an action plan. Despite its assertion that it was following its policy, at no point did the landlord provide him with an action plan or explain why an action plan was not required. This represents multiple missed opportunities to address this concern and help the resident understand exactly what action it could consider and when. As a result, he was left unclear that any action would be considered, which would have been distressing given his expressed vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord’s policy notes it will work with partner agencies to resolve the ASB. It is evident that the resident had reported his concerns to the police and to the local authority. While the landlord made enquiries with the resident as to whether these organisations had taken any further action, it is not evident that it sought to liaise with them directly. This was a failure to follow its policy and a missed opportunity to gain a full understanding of the issues. It is positive, however, that it signposted the resident to additional support through Citizen’s Advice.
  7. Additionally, given the nature of the ASB, the landlord had the opportunity to suggest mediation or an ABC to help resolve the dispute. The Ombudsman considers mediation to be an appropriate option in these circumstances, allowing the parties to be made aware of each other’s concerns and be more amenable to altering patterns of behaviour. However, once again, it is not evident it considered this option, which demonstrates a further failing to investigate thoroughly in accordance with its policy.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that its investigation had been delayed due to a bereavement in the neighbour’s family. The landlord has provided the death certificate of the family member, which indicates they passed away in or before early June 2024. The landlord did not provide its formal response until late September 2024; however, it continued to assert that the investigation was being delayed due to the bereavement. This is a further example of where an action plan is essential, as the resident was left unclear when any investigation would resume or when he would receive further updates.
  9. In summary, while it may be the case that the nature of the ASB was unlikely to result in tenancy enforcement action, the landlord repeatedly failed to measure the resident’s expectations through the use of an action plan or otherwise provide timely updates. It also failed to follow its policy to work with partner agencies or consider alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. These failings over an extended period would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £400 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is made up of £200 for his distress and inconvenience and £200 for his time and trouble chasing updates. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.
  10. An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks of this determination and enquire as to any ongoing ASB. This should include a commitment that in the event the ASB is ongoing, it will provide an action plan within a further 4 weeks outlining what action it can take and in what timeframe, along with when it will provide updates.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days or otherwise request an extension. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  2. The policy also notes that the landlord has assessed its policy against the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to ensure it is compliant. The policy notes that a complaint includes concerns about the standards of service from the landlord. The policy further notes that ASB disputes are not treated as complaints.
  3. The landlord’s policy and the Code require that a stage 1 response be acknowledged within 10 working days. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident made a complaint on 30 April 2024. While there was some ongoing communication relating to the ASB following this, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. Nor did it request an extension. This left the resident unclear as to the progress of his complaint and caused him to have to expend time and trouble chasing a response.
  4. The landlord did not provide a formal response to the resident until 27 September 2024. This was 106 working days after the resident’s complaint without any explanation or communication. This was a significant failing and would have caused the resident distress, especially given the vulnerabilities he had expressed.
  5. The landlord’s policy and the Code also require that there be 2 stages to the complaint procedure. In this case, it is evident that the landlord provided a stage 1 response in 2018 and a further response in September 2024. However, the landlord did not specify that the September 2024 response was a ‘stage 2’ response, nor did it refer to its 2018 response within its September 2024 response. While the 2018 response related to the same ongoing substantive issue, given that the resident’s most recent complaint was made in April 2024 and that a significant amount of time had passed in which new events occurred, it cannot be considered that the 2018 response was part of the landlord’s 2–stage procedure. It therefore failed to follow its policy, which left the resident without a suitable resolution.
  6. While the landlord’s policy notes that ASB concerns are dealt with separately, it also notes that concerns about its service delivery are valid complaints. While the resident had raised ASB concerns, his formal complaint in April 2024 specifically noted his concerns about the landlord’s failure to put an action plan in place or carry out an effective investigation. This was clearly a complaint about the landlord’s service delivery, separate from his ongoing reports of ASB. The landlord therefore misapplied its complaints policy by declining to carry out a complaint investigation. This meant it missed the opportunity to investigate its own service delivery, which may have avoided the issues identified with its ASB investigation discussed above. This failure points to a lack of training in its complaints handling team and would have caused frustration and distress for the resident. It also meant that the resident had to expend time and trouble referring the complaint to this service when a suitable resolution could have been found earlier had the landlord carried out an effective complaint investigation.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint and respond within the correct timeframes. It also failed to conduct a 2-stage investigation and misapplied its complaints policy. Given these failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £250 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is made up of £100 for the delay to its complaint response and £150 for the failure to investigate correctly. This order is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its staff training for its complaints handling team.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports concerning ASB.
    2. complaints handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £650, comprising:
    1. £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ASB investigation failings;
    2. £250 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks of this determination and enquire as to any ongoing ASB. This should include a commitment that in the event the ASB is ongoing, it will provide an action plan within a further 4 weeks outlining what action it can take and in what timeframe, along with when it will provide updates.
  4. The landlord is to review its complaints handling staff training and advise this service of any additional training needs identified within 4 weeks. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.