Ongo Homes Limited (202322948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322948

Ongo Homes Limited

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold (starter) tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between September 2022 and October 2023. The property was a 2–bedroom flat in a block.
Between October 2022 and January 2023, the resident reported multiple incidents of non-residents entering the communal areas of the block to use drugs. She said they were using the trade button on the door entry system, so she asked the landlord to turn this off. She told the landlord this was negatively affecting her mental health. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord said it:
1. Worked with the Police and asked them to increase patrols in the area.
2. Turned off the trade button.
3. Fitted extra lighting in outside areas.
4. Gave the resident a CCTV camera to use on her balcony.
5. Completed an ASB risk assessment for the resident and shared this with partner agencies.
6. Fitted a convex mirror in the communal area of the block, for reassurance and as a deterrent.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 June 2023. She said it had made promises, but not followed through with action. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 July 2023 said the complaint was upheld. It said it did not act quickly enough when she first reported ASB and there was a delay in it completing some of the agreed actions. It apologised and said it had already agreed to compensate her £189.22 (equivalent to 2 weeks’ rent) because of a delay in reinstating her gas supply, when she moved in.
On 28 July 2023 the resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the complaint kept open. She felt the compensation was unacceptable and did not reflect her experience or the impact on her. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 August 2023 said the complaint was upheld. It apologised that it had not been able to make the resident feel safe and secure in her home. It offered £400 compensation in addition to £345.56 (equivalent to 1 months’ rent) that had been paid to her rent account in March 2023.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in October 2023. She said the landlord did nothing to help or support her with the ASB. She asked for a written apology and compensation for the way she had been treated.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s ASB reports

The landlord’s ASB policy gives an example of ASB as drug related incidents. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord treated the resident’s reports as ASB. When the resident first reported drug use in the block on 24 October 2022 the landlord logged an ASB case, but categorised this as ‘no further action’. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which says drug related incidents will be categorised as ‘priority’ ASB cases.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will start investigating priority ASB cases within 5 working days. The landlord said it visited the block on 25 October 2022 to clear up drug paraphernalia and, while this was sensible, it did not take any further action to investigate the matter. It also did not make any follow up contact with the resident at that time. This amounts to maladministration, as it did not act in line with its ASB policy and its lack of contact and action left the resident feeling ignored.
The landlord has identified failure in its handling of the resident’s initial report, which meant it missed the opportunity to further investigate the matter. In response to this, it has changed its process on ‘no further action’ cases and regularly reviews these to ensure cases are opened that need to be. This is positive and should help the landlord to avoid these types of missed opportunities in the future.
The landlord responded to the resident’s initial report on 22 November 2022, 4 weeks after she reported the issue. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will acknowledge all reports of ASB within 24 hours. That did not happen in this case and, despite responding on 22 November 2022, we have seen no evidence that the landlord ever formally acknowledged the resident’s reports. This went against the commitment in its ASB policy and amounts to maladministration.
Despite contacting the resident on 22 November 2022, the landlord did not log a further ASB case or start an investigation until 6 days later, on 28 November 2022. This was only after the resident contacted it at least 6 more times to report further incidents. This left her feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
It is good practice in ASB case handling to agree an action plan with the complainant at the earliest opportunity. The landlord said it visited the resident in December 2022 and agreed an action plan. It also told an MP in January 2023 that an action plan was in place. However, we have seen no evidence of what was agreed as part of this action plan or that the landlord confirmed this in writing to the resident.
It is important that any agreed actions are confirmed in writing with a timescale for completion. This avoids confusion or misunderstanding and allows progress to be measurable. This is even more important in ASB cases as it reassures the complainant that the landlord is committed to taking action to help them resolve the issues. As that did not happen in this case, this left the resident feeling that the landlord did not want to help her.
Another vital step in the management of ASB cases is completing a risk assessment for the complainant at the earliest opportunity. This allows the landlord to assess and manage any risk as well as identify and address any unmet support needs. The landlord completed a risk assessment for the resident on 20 January 2023, which was positive. However, it should have done this much sooner as the resident first reported the ASB 3 months earlier.
The resident told the landlord in October 2022 that she was scared and, the following month, she said the issue was negatively affecting her mental health. This should have prompted the landlord to complete or review the risk assessment, but it did not. It waited a further 2 months to do this, during which time the resident repeatedly explained how the matter was negatively affecting her health.
Once a landlord completes a risk assessment, it is important that it acts where this identifies risk and/or a lack of support. Failure to do this makes the completion of the risk assessment a tick box exercise only, with no benefit or positive outcome for the resident.
The risk assessment score was 27, which was medium risk. As the resident had repeatedly told the landlord this matter was negatively affecting her mental health, it should have considered whether any signposting or support referrals were required. There is no evidence that it assessed what support the resident had in place in respect of her mental health or considered extra support options for her. This was disappointing and made her feel that the landlord disregarded the impact on her.
The landlord said it shared the completed risk assessment with the Police, which was sensible so they were aware of her individual circumstances. However, there is no evidence that the landlord properly considered whether any other support was needed to address the significant impact the matter had on the resident. The landlord’s delay in completing a risk assessment and failure to properly support the resident amounts to maladministration.
Agreeing an action plan and completing a risk assessment are vital steps in the management of ASB cases for the reasons already set out. It is important that these actions are completed as early on in the case management process as possible. We expect landlord ASB policies to include these actions, but the landlord’s current ASB policy does not. This is concerning and is likely to lead to poor ASB case management, as we have seen in this case.
An order is made for the landlord to review and update its ASB policy to include agreeing action plans and completing/reviewing risk assessments, at set times within the ASB case management process. Training should also to be given to all staff who are involved in the handling of ASB cases on the updated policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work with different agencies to achieve the best outcome. The landlord did that in this case as it worked with the Police to tackle this issue. This was sensible as the majority of the people causing the problem were unknown and not believed to be residents of the landlord.
The landlord shared information with the Police and asked them to increase patrols in the area on a number of occasions. The resident said she did not see the Police patrolling and, while understandably frustrating for her, this was not a failure by the landlord. We cannot assess the Police’s handling of the issue, only the landlord. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord took reasonable steps to work with the Police.
When the resident first reported ASB, she asked for the trade button to be turned off to stop people accessing the communal areas. The landlord said it could not do this, but did not explain why and its reasons for initially declining this request are not clear. Trade buttons are not a necessity for blocks of flats and access for trade people can be arranged via other means. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to decline this request, but it should have ensured it took alternative action to ensure the block was safe and secure.
When the landlord said it could not turn the trade button off in January 2023, it suggested changing the access code. However, it acknowledged this was unlikely to resolve the issue and did not consider any other possible solutions. It was only after at least 7 requests from the resident, and the matter escalating in January 2023 (when) the resident reported she was nearly attacked in the communal area, that the landlord took action to turn off the trade button.
In total, it took the landlord 3 months to resolve the trade button issue. Considering the nature of the reports, including that the resident had provided a video of someone injecting themselves with drugs outside the property, this was too long. This amounts to maladministration, as the landlord should have taken swifter action to address the issue to ensure non-residents could not easily access the block.
In June 2023, the resident reported that the trade button had been turned back on and this had allowed people back in to the block. The landlord investigated this and told her it was done in error following a fault with the door entry system. It is understandable that faults can occur. However, considering the previous issues she had reported, it would have been sensible for the landlord to tell residents about this and any impact on the security of the block.
The landlord did not do this and it acknowledged in the stage 1 response that it should have done. Its failure to do this meant the resident did not know what was going on and she incurred further time and trouble to re-report the issue, which could have been avoided. This amounts to maladministration.
As the landlord did not know the identity of the majority of the people involved in this behaviour, it was limited in the actions it could take to stop them coming to the area. Therefore, it was sensible that it suggested improving the block and area security as a way to deter this behaviour. It said it fitted extra lighting, a convex mirror and gave the resident CCTV.
While these were reasonable actions, the landlord was delayed in progressing some of them. It agreed to provide the mirror in January 2023, but did not fit it until 3 months later, in April 2023. Similarly, the landlord had proposed fitting extra lights in at least November 2022, but this did not happen until January 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord gave regular updates to the resident on its progress, or gave expected timescales for when they would be completed. This meant she did not know what was happening and believed the landlord was not treating it as a priority. The delays and poor communication amount to maladministration.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will keep in contact with residents who have reported ASB at least once a month to keep them updated. The records show the landlord was in regular contact with the resident between November 2022 and January 2023, via a number of methods. This was positive as it reassured the resident the landlord was taking the matter seriously and meant she could easily report incidents. However, after a visit on 26 January 2023, there is no record any contact was made to the resident for 2 months, until 29 March 2023. This was not in line with its ASB policy and amounts to maladministration.
When the landlord spoke to the resident on 29 March 2023, it noted she said she was not having any more issues with people getting in to the block. On this basis, the landlord closed the ASB case, which was reasonable. The landlord confirmed this in writing, which was sensible and ensured the resident knew what was happening. The resident later said she was pressured to close the case but, while we do not doubt her comments, we have seen no evidence of this and so can comment further in that regard.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she said the landlord knew there were problems with drug users in the area and, because of her medical history, it should not have housed her there. The allocation of the property was done as a result of the resident’s housing application with the local authority. Therefore, we cannot assess the reasonableness of the offer, as the local authority housing register and the handling of applications falls outside of our jurisdiction.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not tell her about the drug problems in the area before she moved in. We acknowledge that moving to a new area and being faced with these issues was upsetting for the resident. However, it is not the landlord’s responsibility to tell residents about crime or ASB issues in an area, unless there is evidence to suggest these are likely to directly affect the incoming resident.
In this case, the landlord said that previous residents of the property, and other properties in the block, had not reported any issues. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not tell the resident about any drug problems in the wider area as there was no evidence to suggest this was directly affecting the block she was moving to. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it was for the incoming resident to make sure they knew the area and were happy with it before going ahead. As information about wider crime and/or ASB is available for residents to access themselves, this was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord that the impact of this matter on her health meant she could not work and this resulted in her falling behind with her rent payments. In response to this, the landlord suggested she would benefit from its ‘hardship fund’ and asked for her to be considered for this in February 2023. The outcome was that the landlord added one month’s credit to the resident’s account in March 2023. The landlord was not obligated to do this, but doing so showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to help her.
In the stage 2 response of August 2023, the landlord referred to this payment as a form of compensation. This was incorrect as the credit had been added to the rent account 3 months before the formal complaint was raised and 5 months before the stage 2 response was sent. The credit was given in recognition of hardship and not in response to service failure. It was misleading of the landlord to refer to this as compensation at a later stage.
Similarly, in the stage 1 response, the landlord referred to £189.22 compensation offered because of a delay in the gas supply being reinstated. However, this was not relevant to the ASB complaint or paid in recognition of the service failure identified in its handling of this. Again, it was misleading of the landlord to refer to this as such.
While the landlord referred to both of these amounts as compensation for its handling of the ASB, we will not be including these amounts as part of our assessment of the redress offered for this issue. This is because neither of these amounts was actually compensation for its response to the ASB reports. It was inappropriate of the landlord to refer to these as such and suggests it was not fully committed to putting things right for the resident by offering genuine redress in recognition of its failures in the handling of the ASB.
As part of the landlord’s acknowledgement of failures it apologised, offered £400 compensation (excluding the 2 amounts already mentioned) and identified learning. All of this was in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. However, considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the compensation offer was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
An order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation (inclusive of the £400 already offered). We are aware that the £400 compensation offered by the landlord was added to the resident’s rent account in August 2023. This means the landlord must pay an additional £200 to the resident. If she has outstanding rent arrears, the landlord should confirm if she wants any/all of this amount to be paid to the rent account, or to her directly.
When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint she said she wanted a written apology from the landlord. As part of its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord did apologise for the failures in its handling of this matter and acknowledged the impact this had on the resident. Therefore, we have not ordered a further apology.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a resident does not have to expressly ask to raise a formal complaint, and that landlords should proactively raise complaints where a resident expresses dissatisfaction.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of this matter from as early as 22 November 2022. This was 7 months before a formal complaint was raised and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to identify its failures earlier and take action to put things right. This amounts to maladministration.
In a text message exchange on 19 January 2023 the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter. In response the landlord said it would log a complaint, but there is no evidence this happened. This was another missed opportunity and a failed promise of action by the landlord. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling let down.
When the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB on 13 June 2023 the landlord did raise this as a complaint. However, it was not until the resident sent a further email to the landlord’s chief executive around 2 weeks later, on 28 June 2023, that action was taken to acknowledge the complaint and start the investigation. This delay amounts to maladministration and was upsetting for the resident as she had to repeatedly raise her concerns and chase the landlord for the complaint to be progressed.
An order is made for the landlord to deliver training to all front line staff on recognising and raising complaints, in line with its current complaint policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 28 working days, which was over the 10 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it had extended the deadline so it could talk to the resident, but there is no record that it told her about the extension until it provided the response.
Landlords are entitled to extend complaint response deadlines where more time is needed. When it does this, it should tell residents about this and provide an updated response deadline. The landlord did not do that in this case, which meant it went over the committed timescale for the response and the resident did not know why or when to expect the response. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 17 working days, which was within the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £850 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for its handling of her ASB reports (inclusive of the £400 already offered). We are aware that the £400 compensation offered by the landlord was added to the resident’s rent account in August 2023. This means the landlord must pay an additional £200 to the resident. If she has outstanding rent arrears, the landlord to confirm if she wants any/ all of this amount to be paid on to the rent account, or to her directly.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling.
2. Apologised to the resident for its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to all front line staff on recognising and raising complaints, in line with its current complaint policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature in the last 12 months.
Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed and updated its ASB policy to include agreeing action plans and completing/ reviewing risk assessments, at set times within the ASB case management process. Training to be given to all staff who are involved in the handling of ASB cases on the updated policy.