One Vision Housing Limited (202417735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417735

One Vision Housing Limited

11 April 2025

Amended 18 June 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:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours, including noise nuisance, bullying, harassment, and intimidation.
2. the resident’s reports of breaches of tenancy including dogs living in the block, drug use, and benefit fraud.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under agreement dated August 2014. The landlord is a housing association. He lives in a high-rise block of flats and has complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
On 16 April 2024, the police told the landlord it received noise complaints from the resident. The landlord visited him on 17 April 2024 and sent a follow-up email. It confirmed his concerns will be treated as ASB.
On 25 April, the resident told the landlord threats were made against him. He referred to this again on 2 May.
The resident raised a complaint on 15 May about:
1. noise from neighbours.
2. threats made against him.
3. not applying its zero-tolerance policy on ASB, as per a poster in the block’s communal area.
4. the building having a severe drug, benefit fraud, and pet issue.
On 29 May the resident asked about his complaint. The landlord acknowledged it the same day and said it will respond within 10 working days. He raised noise issues on multiple occasions, including on 29, 30, and 31 May and on 11 and 12 June. On 4 June he said his neighbour threatened him 4 times.
On 12 June the landlord reviewed recordings on the noise app. It sent its stage 1 response the same day and said:
1. it has not found sufficient evidence of noise to take further action.
2. it will continue to support him with any further evidence provided.
3. it can investigate reports regarding pets in the block but will need further information to understand which resident his concern is about.
4. it is limited regarding benefit fraud and signposted him to the local council.
On 13 June 2024, the landlord sent a letter to the resident. It confirmed his report of ASB about noise had appropriate action and was closed. On 19 June, he contacted the landlord and requested a stage 2 response.
On 24 June 2024, the resident said his neighbour threatened him and reported it to the police. The next day a Neighbourhood Support Officer contacted him about the report and a risk assessment was carried out.
On 27 June 2024, the resident chased the landlord for the stage 2 response. It emailed him the same day and offered safety alarms, agency support, and for further detail about the ASB on 24 June. It sent an action plan on 3 July 2024.
On 15 July 2024, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said:
1. his ASB reports are ongoing and under investigation and its Community Safety Officers remain in regular contact with him about it.
2. to continue to engage about his ASB reports.
3. the “zero tolerance poster” on ASB has been removed, although ASB is taken seriously and investigated in line with policies.
4. it asked him to provide further information about properties he thinks houses dogs so it can investigate further.
5. it reconfirmed it is limited regarding his concerns about benefit fraud and signposted him to where he can report it.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The resident continued to contact the landlord since the stage 2 response about ASB from his neighbours. It continued investigation into these reports, interviewed those involved, located the neighbour that used threatening language, and used its policies to act. It also offered him and neighbours’ opportunity to consider a Good Neighbours agreement and mediation.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 2 August 2024, as he wanted an apology and compensation for inconvenience and stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that a complaint should relate to the actions or omissions of the landlord. The local authority is responsible for investigating benefit fraud. Therefore, we have determined that we will not assess this aspect of the complaint. We will consider the handling of the reports to the landlord and whether their actions were fair in the circumstances.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues. Some of these include pests in the building, intruders on his floor, building repairs, and instances of ASB after the internal complaint procedure finished. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us.
This investigation will focus on the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses. 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.
When considering the complaints around ASB the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB. Our role is to determine whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies, procedures and legislation.
The resident has informed us that his health has been impacted because of the ASB. We do not assess the cause of health issues or determine liability and award damages in the same way as a court or insurer would do. Therefore, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Reports of ASB – noise

The resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024 and said his neighbour was causing noise. It responded to him on 5, 19 and 20 March, and in that time told his neighbour to be mindful of noise. Even though the resident raised these incidents and the landlord recorded them, he said he did not want them reported as ASB. It agreed with his request not to report these as ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policies and procedures say:
1. it aims to respond directly to the reporter of ASB within 1 working day and carry out a detailed interview within 5 working days.
2. it will complete a risk assessment and use an action plan to set out what each party can or will do.
3. it will gather essential evidence, such as incident diaries, interviews, use of the noise monitoring app, and interviewing residents involved.
4. residents will cooperate with investigation and reasonable steps to resolve the issue.
5. it will review evidence and resident recordings on the noise app to determine if it deems it to be ASB and if it needs to act.
6. it will keep the resident up to date of actions taken with realistic timescale for resolution.
7. actions to address ASB will be reasonable and proportionate, using prevention, early intervention, and diversionary measures, giving alleged perpetrators opportunity to amend behaviour.
The landlord has different tools it can consider when addressing ASB. Some of these include referring to support agencies, providing safety advice, and how to prevent ASB escalating. It can investigate and interview those involved, issue a yellow or red warning card, offer mediation, community justice panels, acceptable behaviour contracts, and demotion orders.
On 16 April 2024, the police told the landlord it received noise complaints from the resident. The landlord visited him and the neighbour on 17 April 2024. It also sent a follow-up email that his concerns will be treated as a report of ASB. This was reasonable and in line with its policies to respond within 1 working day and interview within 5 working days.
When the landlord spoke to the resident on 17 April 2024 he had recordings on memory sticks, rather than the noise app. It did not find evidence of ASB from recordings played, and offered mediation with the neighbour, which he did not agree to. The attempt to organise mediation between the parties demonstrated its proactive engagement in attempt to resolve the issue. It was also fair and in line with policies that it asked him to use the noise app.
On 19 April the landlord completed a risk assessment and emailed the resident, confirming the noise will be investigated as ASB. It said to consider what action it may take, that he uses the noise app to record evidence of disturbance, and that he contacts with any further incidents once a week. It asked he considers the property pool, as he was in band A status. This meant there’s an urgent need to move due to health or welfare reasons and he’s given high priority.
It was reasonable and in line with policy that the landlord assessed the risk, asked him to gather relevant evidence, consider avenues that may resolve the issue, and managed ways he can contact them with any further incidents.
The landlord also confirmed it spoke with the neighbour on 17 April 2024, who will be mindful of noise and stressed that it’s unacceptable to use inappropriate language. It asked both sides not to engage with each other to minimise tension and avoid escalation. And it recommended the resident consider his support network if he feels his mental wellbeing is impacted. This was reasonable and in line with its policies as early intervention to prevent escalation and support him with the impact on his wellbeing.
On 25 April 2024 the landlord sent the resident an action plan, this included:
1. to check who is calling at his property before opening the door.
2. to call the police in an emergency.
3. to record further incidents in the diaries it provided.
4. it will liaise with the police and, dependent on the outcome, consider what further action it may take.
5. it will monitor the case for 2 weeks and it will contact him every month.
On 26 April 2024, the landlord and police visited the neighbour, explained what it considers acceptable volume levels and to be mindful of noise that can carry in a high-rise building. These were reasonable actions in line with its policy to attempt to manage and resolve the report of ASB.
On the 29 April, concern was raised about the resident’s mental wellbeing. The landlord called him and liaised with its safeguarding team initially. It then called the emergency services. The resident asked the landlord not to refer to his mental wellbeing. The landlord’s actions were fair and in line with its policies.
On 29 May, the landlord again asked the resident to consider his high priority band A status on the property pool and see if a different property type would be suitable, where there may be less noise transference. This was reasonable.
On 12 June 2024, the landlord reviewed the evidence on the noise app to determine if it deemed it as ASB and if it needs to act. This is reasonable and in line with its policies. It did not find noise issues from its review and explained this in its stage 1 response to the resident on the same day.
The landlord sent a letter to him on 13 June 2024. It confirmed action had been taken and the case would be closed. The actions are outlined earlier in this report, such as interviewing the neighbour, and offering advice and solutions to the parties involved. This was reasonable.
On 3 July 2024, the police confirmed its not pursuing a criminal investigation in relation to the noise complaint raised. After the internal complaint procedure, there were further reports from the resident and the landlord re-opened the ASB report on 16 September 2024.

Reports of ASB – threats

On 25 April the resident told the landlord threats were made against him and referred to the recording the landlord listened to on 17 April. It told him it had already listened to his recording and confirmed it did not hear a threat. It responded to his report of a threat within 1 day, in line with its policies.
On 2 May the resident refers to the threat incident again and on 10 May the landlord asked for recordings. From the information it was provided it did not take it further. It was fair for the landlord to consider evidence to determine if it needed to take further action in line with ASB policies.
In the resident’s complaint on 15 May and contact on 4 June 2024, he said he had threats made against him from the neighbour. The landlord told him to call the police on 4 June, and confirmed on 19 June it’s in the process of listening to the noise app recordings.
It was fair for the landlord to consider evidence to determine if it finds ASB and what actions to consider. And although there had been repeated contact from the resident over the phone and email, the landlord did not respond to these potential new allegations until 19 June. On that date it confirmed it’s listening to recordings he’s sent. This is not in line with policy to respond within 1 working day, interview within 5 working days, and to assess risk.
In responding to new allegations and considering the risk, the landlord may have been able to better understand the reports of ASB and consider further actions. Addressing it and understanding the risk involved could have led to measures put in place at the first opportunity to reduce impact. The fact it had not done so when these incidents were raised is a failure of its service and left the resident feeling stressed and open to risk.
On 24 June 2024, the resident emailed the landlord with specific information regarding a threat made to him that day. It visited him the next day about this and completed a risk assessment. This was fair and in line with its policies.
On 27 June, the landlord said it will keep in touch and send an action plan on 3 July. During that time, it:
1. offered him safety alarms for his property.
2. reminded him to check who is at his property before opening the door.
3. asked him to refrain from interacting with the neighbour.
4. said to call 999 for an emergency and 101 for non-emergencies.
5. offered to contact support agencies he may need and provided information about services in his area.
6. asked for details of the threat, his recording of it, and to continue to use incident diaries.
7. asked for the police reference number for the incident on 24 June.

These actions show the landlords effort to respond within timeframes outlined in its policy, cooperate with the resident to gather evidence, offer safety advice, and signpost to support agencies that may be useful. This was reasonable and in line with its policies.

In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 15 July 2024, it explained to the resident the investigation into the ASB is ongoing, and it will keep in touch with him.
Since the stage 2 response, the resident contacted the landlord about the ASB. It continued to investigate and found the cause of the threat from 24 June was from a different neighbour. It acted on this by interviewing the neighbour and issuing a warning. It confirmed on 19 October that the ASB report was closed.
From the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses, it did not find it had failed in its service. It committed to the investigations of the residents reports of ASB and asked he continues to engage with them about it.
In summary, the landlord logged the ASB incidents and took a risk-based approach. It managed his expectations with its action plans and investigated the reports. It also explored different options to remedy the issue as well as engage with him to gather evidence. A mitigating factor in this, is that the resident had not always engaged with options it presented in attempt to resolve the ASB.
The landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was reasonable, except for the delay responding to the earlier reports of threats. Therefore, we find service failure in how it handled the reports of ASB.
After careful consideration regarding the ASB, the landlord failed in its service to risk assess the threat allegations which caused distress. In line with our remedies guidance and considering the landlord’s policies, a fair level of compensation to recognise this would be £100.

Breaches of tenancy reports

The resident explained in his complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2024 that it is well known the building has a severe drug and pet issue. He had not provided specific information about an individual or property within the block.
The landlord’s drug and pet policies and procedures say:
1. it may treat behaviour from individuals, where they fail to keep control over pets, as ASB and take appropriate tenancy or civil actions if it presents a threat or annoyance to residents.
2. it can consider the pet policy alongside the ASB policy, which says:
  1. residents will cooperate with investigation and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue.
3. drug related reports are passed to the police as ‘intelligence’ and residents encouraged to report what they witness to the police or Crimestoppers.
4. it may issue ‘warning cards’ or, where tenants convicted of drug-related offences, take legal action which is considered on a case-by-case basis dependent on factors like seriousness of offence and reasonableness to act.
5. the resident’s tenancy agreement says:
  1. pets can be kept at home, with written consent from the landlord.
  2. if a resident lives in a flat, it will not give permission to keep a dog unless there are medical grounds to do so.
The landlord asked him to provide further information about any properties he believes houses dogs in its stage 1 and stage 2 response, so it can investigate and take appropriate action. Although there is no evidence to suggest it answered his concerns about drugs in the building in the complaint responses, or outside of these responses.
The landlord could have been proactive and written to the residents to remind them of their obligations following the report of nuisance caused by dogs. And there’s no evidence to show it answered his complaint about drugs in the property. The responses were not reasonable as it had not answered the resident’s complaint, and this would likely have caused distress.
The landlord had not answered the residents’ complaint about drugs in the building in its stage 1 and stage 2 response, or outside of that. This is unreasonable and not in line with its policies. Therefore, we find service failure in how the landlord handled his report of drugs in the building.
In line with its policies, a fair way to resolve this is to provide the resident a response about drugs in the building. It’s likely he would have felt frustrated by not having his report answered. Considering our remedies guidance and its policies, the landlord should pay him £50 to recognise this.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date it acknowledged at stage 1.
  1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation.
  1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 20 working days.
The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.
The resident made his complaint on 15 May 2024 and chased the landlord about this on 29 May. On that date, the landlord acknowledged his complaint. This was 4 working days late, and outside of its policies and the Code, which inconvenienced him.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 12 June 2024. This was 10 working days since acknowledging his complaint and in line with its policies and the Code.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 17 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged it that day saying it will respond in 20 working days. This is fair and in line with its policies and the Code.
On 15 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. This was fair and in line with timescales set out in its policy and the Code. Although it did not comment that it acknowledged the complaint late in its responses.
There had been no measurable monetary loss because of the complaint handling failing. Alnd although the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint in time, there was little to no detriment caused to the resident. Therefore, we find there is no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord recognising some reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s report of drugs in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. provide an apology for the errors identified in this report and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. pay a total of £150 to the resident, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the residents reports of threats made to him.
  2. £50 for the inconvenience caused, as the landlord did not answer his report about drugs in the building.
3. write to the resident setting out the landlord’s response to his reports that there is a severe drug problem in the block and include how it will work with partner agencies to investigate these reports. A copy of this should be provided to this Service.
4. the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of this determination. That could be receipt of payment made to the resident, as well as a copy of the letter sent to him apologising for failures identified in this report, and a copy of the letter that answers his report of a severe drug problem in the block.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the options available to him in relation to moving properties.