Newlon Housing Trust (202425663)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425663

Newlon Housing Trust

10 April 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated 17 May 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2 bed, ground floor and basement flat occupied by the resident, her husband and their daughter. The landlord has logged a medical vulnerability for the resident which prioritises her for certain repairs.
The resident shares a communal hallway with a neighbour in the flat above hers. On 6 June 2024 the resident reported that the neighbour had stood in the hallway outside her front door, listening in to her conversation with her husband. The resident also said that the neighbour kept moving her metal toolbox situated on her front porch.
On 7 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report. It advised someone would contact her within 10 days and directed the resident to complete diary sheets. It also advised her to report any criminal incidents to the police. The landlord offered mediation to the parties, proposed for 13 June 2024. Before this could take place, a further incident of ASB occurred when the resident’s husband was assaulted by the neighbour on 9 June 2024.
On 10 June 2024 the landlord met with the resident and reviewed camera footage of the assault. The resident told the landlord about other ASB caused by the neighbour, such as mess left in the hallway. As the police had arrested the neighbour following the assault, the landlord advised the resident that it would liaise with the police regarding any bail conditions for the neighbour, as it intended to take legal action. The landlord arranged to clear the mess in the hallway and began collecting witness statements.
On 8 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said ongoing harassment from the neighbour had led to the assault of her husband, and that despite police involvement, she felt the landlord had not taken any action. The resident stated that the landlord’s policy to ensure the safety of all tenants had been disregarded, as her and her family, especially her daughter, were living in fear and did not feel safe. As an outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to contact her regarding the assault and the course of action it planned to take. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 July 2024.
On 13 July 2024 the resident reported a further incident of ASB. The landlord responded 2 days later, apologising for the continued issues and distress caused by the neighbour. It advised her that it had tried to contact the neighbour, with no success, but would continue to try and address the matter promptly. It also advised that it would include the latest incident in an application for an injunction against the neighbour.
On 16 July 2024 the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were flooded with water from a leak from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord’s contractor suspected that the neighbour might intentionally have caused the leak. The landlord informed the resident that it intended to submit an injunction application against the neighbour on 22 July 2024. It explained there was a delay to submitting the application due to having to review the leak as a possible addition to case.
On 2 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. apologised that the resident had experienced issues and an assault from the neighbour.
2. apologised for a delay in keeping her informed as its legal team actively investigated the resident’s case.
3. acknowledged that not keeping the resident informed of the actions it was taking had caused distress and worry for her and family. It apologised for its service failure.
4. apologised for the late stage 1 response, due to an IT systems failure.
5. offered the resident compensation of £125, made up of:
  1. £25 for the late stage 1 response due to an IT systems failure.
  2. £25 for its service failure in not keeping the resident informed.
  3. £75 for the worry caused to the resident and her family.
On 26 August 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she had been reporting issues with the neighbour for over 3 years and felt that a consequence of the landlord’s lack of action, was that her husband was assaulted. She said the request for escalation was down to reasons listed in previous calls, visits and emails to the landlord about the ASB, and due to the long length of time for a response. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 August 2024.
On 12 September 2024 the landlord informed the resident that the court had granted an Injunction Order and Power of Arrest, however this would not take effect until the landlord served the papers to the neighbour. The evidence shows that the neighbour ignored the landlord’s communication and denied access to his property at least 9 times between July and September 2024, including to receive the court papers and to allow investigation of the leak. The landlord was finally able to serve the court papers on 16 October 2024.
On 3 October 2024 the landlord contacted the resident. It said that due to the live and complex issues with the case it needed more time to investigate and requested an extension for the stage 2 response. Over the following 2 weeks, the resident reported 2 further leaks. The landlord responded immediately, made plans to investigate and sourced the cause of the leak. It carried out repairs and arranged for the redecoration of the resident’s home. During this time, the landlord emailed the resident to explain its plan of action to resolve the leak and to apologise for the continued disruption.
The stage 2 response was issued on 31 October 2024. The landlord apologised that the resident was not happy with the handling of the complaint at stage 1 but did not uphold the resident’s complaint, stating the following:
1. it had logged the ASB case in June 2024 and referred it to its investigations team.
2. the investigations team had worked with police and legal services, taking legal advice as the situation developed.
3. the landlord had sought and secured injunctions against the neighbour.
4. contact between the landlord and resident appeared frequent and without unnecessary lapses.
5. previous ASB cases reported by the resident were closed, except for the incident which had led to the neighbour’s arrest in June.
6. any breach of injunction, duly evidenced, would result in the landlord seeking a court order for possession of the home from the neighbour.
7. it concluded that the response at stage 1 was fair because the landlord had followed due ASB process and acted reasonably.
8. it re-offered the £125 compensation from stage 1.
Due to ongoing ASB, in November 2024 the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She stated that she wanted clarity on the delay in serving the injunction to the neighbour, and for the landlord to treat the matter seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said she had reported issues with her neighbour for over 3 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 6 June 2024 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to 6 June 2024 are made in this report to provide context.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident reported further incidents of ASB that occurred after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident advised that further leaks had caused her ceiling to collapse and that the neighbour had breached his injunction. She felt that the landlord still was not taking any action. These incidents occurred after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been exhausted and did not form part of the original complaint brought to us.
Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2024. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

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

In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) policy states its procedures as follows:
1. the landlord should make clear to the resident who the action/case has been passed to, when they will be contacted and what will happen next.
2. where there is a known perpetrator, advise the resident to keep diary sheets.
3. what actions can be taken will be determined by the nature of the incident, the severity and frequency and what supporting evidence has been provided.
4. the landlord will need to assess risk for the resident in terms of whether they are in immediate danger or under threat of serious harm.
5. any advice provided, or action plan must be sent to the resident clearly outlining what actions both the resident and the landlord will be responsible for. Any actions should have a timescale.
The policy lists actions the landlord can take in cases of ASB:
1. contact the alleged perpetrator within 10 days.
2. request police disclosure where there has been serious criminal activity.
3. referrals to third party agencies, for the complainant or alleged perpetrator.
4. civil injunction in cases of threats of violence, where there is sufficient evidence, and the police are involved.
5. Possession proceedings – if pursued, the landlord will follow the Pre-Action Protocol and carry out a Public Sector Equality Act Assessment.
The policy also refers to the involvement of external agencies in reviewing cases such as the Community Trigger.
The landlord’s compensation policy gives the following guidance on levels of compensation to pay:
1. £25: poor communication.
2. £50 – £250: service failures of a short duration which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant, e.g. distress experienced by the complainant.
The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 6 June 2024. This was acknowledged by the landlord the next day. The resident was given guidance on the ASB process and advised to complete diary sheets and to report any criminal incidents to the police. The resident was told that someone would contact her within 10 working days, once an initial assessment had been made. The evidence shows that the landlord offered mediation, which was scheduled to take place on 13 June 2024. This was a timely and appropriate response and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
Before the landlord could take further action, the resident reported an escalation of ASB on 9 June 2024, when her husband was assaulted by the neighbour. The landlord met with the resident on 10 June 2024 and advised it intended to take legal action against the neighbour. During this meeting, the resident mentioned other ASB concerns, such as mess left in the communal hallway by the neighbour, and on the same day, the landlord arranged for this to be cleared away. These were reasonable actions taken by the landlord in line with its ASB policy.
The evidence shows that at some point a risk assessment was completed for the resident, however there is no date on the document. The landlord’s records show that the risk assessment was attached to an internal email on 3 October 2024, so it was possibly completed around that time. The resident’s case was determined high risk. The landlord’s ASB policy states that risk should be assessed to determine if a resident is in immediate danger or under threat of serious harm.
As the resident made her ASB report in June 2024, there appears to be an unreasonable delay in the landlord utilising the risk assessment. Although the landlord took quick action in seeking an injunction against the neighbour, by not assessing the resident’s risk, the landlord potentially missed an opportunity to refer or signpost the resident to external services, ensuring she and her family had access to additional support. In this regard, the landlord failed to consider all actions it could take to reduce the distress caused to the resident and her family.
The resident raised her complaint on 8 July 2024 stating that she felt the landlord had not taken any action regarding the ASB. She said that she and her family were living in fear and did not feel safe. The records show that when the resident first reported ASB on 6 June 2024, the landlord responded quickly and offered mediation. When the resident made a second report of ASB, the landlord responded again within a timely manner, met with the resident and advised its intentions to take legal action against the neighbour.
Although the actions that the landlord took were timely and reasonable, there is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident between 10 June 2024 and 8 July 2024. The ASB guidance, which is available on our website, states that landlords should be clear about:
1. the steps they will take to investigate the reported incident and agree how and when updates will be provided to the resident.
2. the potential length of time for enforcement actions and the process leading to any possible legal action.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with updates and/or an action plan during this time. By keeping her informed, it could have offered reassurance that the matter was being dealt with and could have prevented the resident from having to raise a complaint. However, in its stage 1 response issued on 2 August 2024, the landlord recognised its failure and acknowledged that by not keeping the resident updated, it had caused distress and worry for her and family and apologised. It offered the resident £100 compensation, made up of:
1. £25 for not keeping the resident informed.
2. £75 for the worry caused to the resident and her family.
This offer showed some attempts to ‘put things right’. However, the landlord failed to fully address the impact that the ASB was having on the resident and her family by not providing any signposting information for agencies such as victim support. This could have helped the resident access support alongside the landlord’s investigation. Our ASB guidance further states that landlords should have clear information available to residents, signposting to relevant agencies. This was another missed opportunity to refer or signpost the resident to appropriate agencies, and a failure of service by the landlord.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 August 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident stated that she had experienced ASB from her neighbour for over 3 years and felt that the consequence of the landlord’s actions was that her husband was eventually assaulted.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 October 2024. It stated that ASB cases reported by the resident were closed, except for the June 2024 incident. The landlord stated that it had responded to that incident appropriately and explained that it had not used other practices, (e.g. Acceptable Behaviour Contract) due to applying for an injunction against the neighbour. The landlord reoffered the compensation from its stage 1 response and stated that a breach of injunction would result in seeking possession of the neighbour’s property. It apologised that the resident’s husband had been a victim of violence.
The landlord gave a clear explanation of its actions and advised the resident of its intentions should the neighbour breach the injunction. In its response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of the option to request the Community Trigger, providing a threshold was met. In this regard, the landlord missed an opportunity to ensure the resident was aware of her rights to have her case reviewed.
On 12 September 2024 the landlord informed the resident that an Injunction Order and Power of Arrest had been granted against the neighbour. This came into effect when the landlord served the court papers to the neighbour on 16 October 2024, 24 working days later. The evidence shows that between July and September 2024, the neighbour ignored communication from the landlord via email, letter and in person, and denied access to his property on at least 9 occasions.
These occasions included attempts to serve court papers and to investigate water leaks from the neighbour’s property into the resident’s, which the landlord suspected the neighbour was causing intentionally. Although there was a delay in serving the court papers to the neighbour, it is reasonable to say that the landlord made significant attempts, using different methods to act in serving the injunction and to resolve the resident’s ASB complaints.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions whilst responding to the resident’s ASB reports and acknowledged its failing in keeping the resident informed. However, it failed to utilise all actions and resources available in accordance with its policy, missing opportunities to provide the resident with additional support. In summary, the landlord:
1. missed opportunities to refer/signpost the resident to support agencies.
2. delayed in utilising a risk assessment in a timely manner.
3. delayed in updating the resident on its actions between 10 June 2024 and 8 July 2024.
4. failed to fully address the impact of the ASB on the resident and her family in its stage 1 complaint response.
5. failed to ensure the resident was aware of her rights to have her case reviewed in its stage 2 response.
In its complaint responses, the landlord recognised it had not kept the resident updated. It offered some compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, we have found other failures in this investigation which the landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint responses.
As a result of the above failures, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord offered the resident compensation totaling £100. While the compensation shows some attempt to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles, we have found the landlord’s offer disproportionate to the failings that occurred.
After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 has been made, making the total compensation award £250, inclusive of the offer made in the landlord’s complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states the following timescales for its complaint responses:
1. Stage 1:
  1. acknowledgement 5 working days within receipt of complaint.
  2. response outlining the decision 10 working days from date the complaint was acknowledged.
2. Stage 2:
  1. acknowledgement within 5 working days of the request to escalate.
  2. full response sent 20 working days from date the complaint was acknowledged.
  3. if not possible due to complexity, an explanation and date when the stage 2 response will be issued should be provided to the resident.
The resident raised her complaint on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 18 July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2024, 11 working days later. This was 1 day outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
In its response, the landlord acknowledged the late reply and apologised. It explained that the late response was due to an IT systems failure and offered the resident compensation of £25, which was in line with its compensation policy. In this regard, the landlord made reasonable attempts to ‘put things right.’
On 26 August 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the request on 30 August 2024 and advised the resident it would issue a response within 20 working days. On 3 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that due to the live and complex issues of the case, it would need more time to investigate and requested an extension. This letter was sent was 24 working days after the escalation request was acknowledged, and 4 days outside of the landlord’s stated response time.
As the extension request was made after the stage 2 response should have been issued, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an interim stage 2 response, with details that a full and final stage 2 response would be provided at an agreed later date. Although the landlord did provide the resident with details to contact this Service if unhappy with the request, we have seen no evidence that the resident agreed to the extension. This was a failure in service by the landlord as it did not comply with its complaints policy.
The landlord stated it would aim to provide a response in full no later than 31 October 2024. The Stage 2 response was issued by the landlord on 31 October 2024.
Although the landlord acknowledged and offered an apology and compensation for its late stage 1 response, it failed to identify its failings in the stage 2 response. Whilst the £25 offer of compensation shows some attempt to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles, we have found the landlord’s offer disproportionate to the failings that occurred. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 has been made, making the total compensation award £75, inclusive of the offer made in the landlord’s complaint responses.

Determination

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 anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Write to the resident to set out what it has learned from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £325, which is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in the handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord may deduct the £100 it offered through its complaint process if it can evidence it has already paid it.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in the handling of the associated complaint. The landlord may deduct the £25 it offered through its complaint process if it can evidence it has already paid it.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.