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

Onward Homes Limited (202414592)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414592

Onward Homes Limited

31 March 2025

Updated 9 July 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report that it breached data protection (GDPR) by disclosing she was an employee and resident to third parties.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by neighbours.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord. Her tenancy commenced in 2010. A third party owns the building and employs a managing agent to look after the estate. Another landlord also owns properties on the estate. It is aware of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident said that in 2018 she told the landlord that other occupants on the estate were harassing her. She believed this began due to it disclosing that she was an employee to the managing agent and other tenants. The caretaker began directing tenants to her home to raise their concerns. She said that its disclosure of her identity resulted in harassment, verbal abuse, assault, and stalking.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 July 2022 about the ongoing ASB and harassment. She wrote further on 13 July 2022 clarifying that her complaint related to its disclosure of her identity, its lack of action and that she felt unsafe. She said the situation was affecting her mental health.
  4. The landlord responded on 19 July 2022. It explained the actions it had taken and confirmed that its safer neighbourhood team were dealing with her ASB reports. It acknowledged that it had not returned her telephone call in April 2022 and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown. However, on 3 January 2024, she asked the landlord to ensure it formally addressed 3 complaints. She wrote further between January and July 2024 repeating her concerns. She said there had been a lack of communication and it had failed to deal with her ASB reports since 2018. It had not followed its procedures and had failed to log her complaints. It showed little empathy or consideration for her mental health and security concerns.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. It said that it had dealt with the disclosure of her identity under its employment grievance procedure and this was therefore outside the scope of its complaints process. It set out the ASB incidents from 2021, actions it had taken, and outcomes. It said it had followed its procedures and completed a risk assessment and action plan when it opened her ASB case. It had worked in partnership with the police and another landlord to try and evidence the ASB. It offered mediation and a move to alternative accommodation. It detailed its learning from the complaint and apologised for its lack of action for security. It offered £700 compensation comprising:
    1. £100 for the confusion of who was managing the case.
    2. £200 for delays while it investigated her complaint.
    3. £200 for confusion over security measures and the lack of communication.
    4. £200 for not acknowledging and responding to her concerns about her mental wellbeing.
  7. The resident made a further complaint on 11 July 2024. This included other matters but also repeated her ASB concerns. The landlord responded in August 2024 and directed her to its previous stage 2 response. It acknowledged and apologised that it had failed to assign her June ASB report to its safer neighbourhood team and offered a further £100 compensation. Its total compensation awarded in all responses was £850.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to complete the security measures to her letterbox and communal doors, acknowledge its failings and apologise. She is seeking compensation for the “loss of quiet enjoyment of her home” for the past 6 years to reflect her “mental anguish and distress”.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint may not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction:
    1. Report that the landlord breached data protection (GDPR) by disclosing she was an employee and resident to third parties.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint, that the landlord breached GDPR and disclosed her identity as an employee to third parties, would be a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to consider.

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint she explained that she suffered from complex PTSD and other mental health concerns. She said that the ongoing ASB and landlord’s inaction led to a decline in her mental health.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the decline of her mental health as a result of the landlord’s inaction is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress and inconvenience likely caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  3. We are unable to consider matters which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it confirmed that it had dealt with the disclosure of her identity via its employment grievance procedure in 2020. The Ombudsman cannot investigate personnel or employment issues. If the resident has ongoing employment concerns she may wish to seek advice from ACAS.
  4. The resident told us that the ASB has been ongoing since 2018. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence to enable a reliable and thorough investigation of its response at the time. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, within 12 months of the matter arising. They can then progress these to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how the landlord responds. While she told us that she had been raising complaints since 2018, it had treated these informally due to her employee status. However, as the matter was not brought to us at the time this has limited our ability to investigate.
  5. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through to its final response. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its 2-stage process. This investigation has focussed on the landlord/tenant relationship and its handling of her reports of ASB. We have considered events from 2022 when the resident raised her complaint, leading up to its final response on 9 July 2024. Any historic events, or events after its final response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy adopts the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB as conduct which:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. While the landlord did not provide a copy of its ASB procedure, its online toolkit shows that it has 2 categories of ASB. Category A relates to hate crime, domestic abuse, and threats or actual violence. It will respond within 24 hours and take full details of the incident and make any necessary referrals to support agencies. Category B relates to noise and low level ASB, and it will call back within 5 working days.
  3. It is not disputed that there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. In the resident’s complaint of 3 July 2022, she said she had been waiting for a call back since April regarding her ASB report. She said that a neighbour had been “hanging around” outside her home. When she let her cat out, they abused her. They said she was “housing scum” and should give up her property to people who deserved it. She said she had reported this in August 2021 and February 2022 but it took no action. She wrote again on 13 July 2022 to clarify that her complaint related to its disclosure of her identity and being subjected to abuse and harassment. She felt unsafe and it had affected her mental health. She asked for £5,000 compensation for pain and suffering that the situation had caused due to its lack of action.
  5. The landlord sent a response on 19 July 2022. It is not clear from its communication that this was a stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s call in April and offered £50 compensation. It said that during a call on 12 July 2022, she was asked to provide video evidence of the ASB and contact details of the PCSO to pass to its safer neighbourhood team. It received the video evidence on 14 July 2022 and its safer neighbourhood team would contact her to discuss it further.
  6. The landlord’s response was reasonable in acknowledging its failings and offering some recompense. It was also reasonable to ask its safer neighbourhood team to investigate her reports of ASB. However, it would have been helpful for it to have responded to her further communication of 13 July 2022 as it had not yet provided its stage 1 response. Given her assertion that she felt unsafe, it should have considered what support it could offer or have clarified that its safer neighbourhood team would discuss this with her. Its response did not fully address her concerns.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 August 2022 following a discussion of her concerns. It confirmed it had completed a risk assessment which scored medium to low. It set out its action plan and said it would contact the police to get historic information. It explained it would contact the other landlord to issue a warning to their tenant. It would conduct a joint visit with the police and other landlord to 2 parties to issue a verbal warning. In order for it to resolve the matters it needed her to keep a diary of any incidents when they occurred, keep any recordings, and to inform the police. This demonstrates that it listened to the resident’s concerns and took appropriate measures in line with its processes.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the police and the other landlord on 15 August 2022. It requested a date for a joint visit and explained that 2 individuals were approaching the resident.
  9. On 16 August 2022 the landlord’s records show that counter allegations were made against the resident by her neighbour. It attempted to visit the parties on 25 August 2022 but was unsuccessful. It tried to update the resident on 2 occasions in September and October without success and left a voicemail. It received no further reports until 9 November 2022 when she reported that a neighbour had shouted out of the window at her, asking if she worked for it. They asked if she had “grassed them up” and she said she just lived there. She also reported that she had almost been run over and the police and safer neighbourhood team were visiting her the following day. It visited all 3 parties with the police on 10 November 2022. All parties were asked to stay away from each other in the future. The resident was happy with this and for it to close the case.
  10. On 28 November 2022 the resident reported that a female had been seen near her home. She had shouted names when walking past. The landlord confirmed that the female had been visiting a friend nearby. While not enforceable it had asked them not to walk their dog near the resident’s home.
  11. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives reports of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. 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. We appreciate that the situation likely caused distress for the resident. However, the landlord would be limited in the actions it could take without substantial evidence to prove ASB. In these instances, its actions were appropriate and proportionate.
  12. On 1 December 2022 the resident reported an assault. She had been locked in the bin store by a male wearing a mask. She recorded some of the incident on her phone. The male opened the door, knocked her phone out of her hand and punched her in the face before running off. As she turned the corner the female was sat in her car filming her crying. She recognised this would be a coincidence but every time something happened the female seemed to be there. She reported the incident to the police and asked the landlord to provide additional lighting near the bin store. In its response on 5 December 2022, it said it would be difficult to identify the offender or connect them to the female. It asked if she would consider moving, something the police would likely support if she wished to consider this.
  13. The landlord’s offer to move the resident to alternative accommodation was appropriate. However, there was no evidence at the time that it contacted the management company to discuss the lighting near the bin store. Its response was also later than its 24 hour timescale set out in its ASB toolkit for actual violence. While an assault would be a criminal matter for the police to investigate, there was no evidence to show that it offered any support following the incident. It would have been reasonable to have considered making referrals to other agencies such as victim support.
  14. The resident made a report about a male on 9 January 2023 verbally and physically assaulting a woman. She had recorded some of it but could hear the fight from her flat in the next block. She said that the male was a bully and action needed to be taken. The landlord tried to contact her on 16 January 2023 without success. It left a voicemail asking her to call back. On 19 January 2023 it wrote to her stating it was sending diary sheets and instructions on how to complete these along with its noise app.
  15. The landlord’s records of 29 May 2023 referred to the resident reporting that her neighbour’s car had broken down outside and they were causing noise. She had recorded the incident on video, but it did not pick up any loud noise. She claimed that the neighbour was abusive when she asked them to stop making a noise, but the neighbour made counter allegations. They explained that their car had broken down and was parked on a public road and was not an obstruction. She sent a video of the car being towed away but this was not an issue it could deal with.
  16. On 4 August 2023 the resident reported that someone had been ringing her employer over the past few months asking if she worked there. She had post missing from her mailbox which she had deliberately left there. The lock had always been faulty but it had since been broken. She believed this was a continuation of the harassment and did not feel safe. She asked for additional security measures to her home, something she had not been offered following the assault. She had been offered a management move in December 2022 but was not prepared to move as it was “the landlord’s fault”. She wanted the management company to ensure that the main entrance door locks were working, blinds replacing which had been removed due to a leak, security lighting, and her letterbox fixed.
  17. The landlord’s records of 24 August 2023 show that the resident complained that it had not dealt with her reports of a female parking and smoking near her flat. The neighbour made counter allegations against her for feeding stray cats. It had explained that it was unable to deal with the matter as it was about 2 neighbours “falling out” and reporting each other. It considered this to be a neighbour dispute and offered mediation to both parties.
  18. We consider 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. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered this as a resolution.
  19. The resident reported a further incident on 12 September 2023 via the landlord’s portal. It responded the following day asking for details of the incident. She responded stating she was collating evidence and witness details which included the police and would submit a formal complaint. Its records of 14 September 2023 referred to an incident where police had been on site dealing with a death and a male had threatened her. Its safer neighbourhood team investigated but there was no evidence from the police or witnesses. The same day it received 5 videos from her relating to the same person abusing a female. It had watched the videos which were noises of 2 people arguing inside a flat. It could not identify the people or property this related to and she was advised to contact the police. This was appropriate advice given the landlord was unable to identify the individuals from the videos.
  20. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2023 stating it had not responded to her complaint. She had numerous witnesses including the police but it was saying it could take no action. She would ask her witnesses to make formal statements. She repeated that it was its fault she had been verbally and physically assaulted for breaching GDPR. It had ignored her multiple complaints. The same day the resident asked the safer neighbourhood team to ask the male not to contact her and give a verbal warning. It agreed to speak to the male and ask them not to speak to her.
  21. The landlord updated the resident explaining that the police had no record of any outstanding actions. The evidence had been insufficient and there were several counter allegations against her. She had not agreed to mediation and while it had an open ASB case, there was no action due to the lack of evidence. The male had given a different version of events but was encouraged not to approach her in the future. It asked that she not approach the male. It had checked with the police regarding the incident and her reports of domestic abuse. Having reviewed the police report it did not intend to take any further action. If there were further reports it said it would refer the matter to a mediation service.
  22. It is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. There was no evidence that diary sheets had been completed or submitted by the resident as requested by the landlord. While she believed that her videos provided evidence, it would have been challenging for the landlord to have taken action where it could not identify individuals. It should also be noted that in cases of domestic abuse, it is unlikely that the landlord would be able to disclose any actions taken to the reporter who is not involved in the matter.
  23. The evidence shows that the landlord held a meeting to discuss the reported ASB. It agreed to send diary sheets to the resident along with noise app instructions. It said it would monitor the situation over the next 4 weeks and review any diary sheets. It had received counter allegations about the resident being abusive to other tenants. It concluded there was insufficient evidence from the resident and police to pursue the matter further.
  24. The resident made a further report on 23 October 2023 stating that once again her neighbour was arguing and fighting with his girlfriend. She said that everyone was terrified of him and despite complaints and videos it continued to take no action. The landlord responded the following day asking if the video had a time and date and where it was taken. It had received no other reports about the male and again asked that she keep a diary of evidence with dates and times.
  25. The landlord’s records of 24 October 2023 referred to arranging to supply and fit security lighting to the rear of the property. It also referred to additional locks for the resident’s front door and fixing the letter box. This was something which the resident had previously requested on a number of occasions. It is not known why it had not taken this action previously.
  26. The landlord’s records of 11 December 2023 referred to opening an ASB case due to the resident reporting historic incidents. It had opened the case to add evidence if any came to light and would complete a risk assessment and action plan if new incidents happened but it had received no reports. It emailed the resident to confirm that it would close the case if it received no further reports. This was reasonable, however, it should have completed a risk assessment given she had reported feeling unsafe several times. It is good practice to regularly review risk assessments to assess any changes and to enable landlords to provide appropriate support, even when they are unable to take any action.
  27. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 January 2024 asking it to formally address her complaint. She said she was at “breaking point” and the lasting “psychological damage” caused had made her “severely unwell”. She had given it an opportunity to address the issues but it continually failed her and tried to manipulate the narrative to make it seem as though she had responses and closed her cases. The landlord responded that its customer resolution team would respond and it had logged her complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
  28. The resident’s sister wrote to the landlord the following day. They said she had lived in “complete hell” for multiple years since submitting her issues in 2023. It had taken no action in relation to an incident on Christmas day. It was aware of her vulnerabilities but offered no apology or explanation for its failures. The landlord responded the following day and offered to meet with the resident and her sister. Alternatively, it would provide a full stage 2 response.
  29. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2024 stating that it had received a full review from its safer neighbourhood manager regarding the ASB. It wrote further on 14 February 2024 stating that it was due to interview the perpetrator following the incident on Christmas day. It asked whether any further incidents had happened or if she had any updates from the police. She responded and said there had been no further incidents and the police had reviewed the evidence spanning over the years including her videos. They would issue a formal warning to the female if she continued with the harassment and stalking.
  30. On 13 May 2024 the resident reported an incident to the other landlord. She said she had seen the female walking their dog around the green. She was unsure whether they saw her but she caught it on video. While nothing happened, she was near her home. She said she would speak to the officer who came to see her and ask them to prosecute for harassment going back to 2018.
  31. In the resident’s complaint she said that the landlord had failed to return calls, take accountability, showed a lack of empathy for her mental illness or provide her with an accurate response. She had reported ASB incidents and not heard from the safer neighbourhood team within 24 hours. This had been an ongoing issue since 2018 which resulted in the assault. She wanted £1,500 compensation for distress.
  32. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. It said it was evident that the case was handled by multiple colleagues and it aimed to review its ASB policy. It said it was sorry that the resident had experienced ASB dating back to 2018. It was aware of an incident in July 2021 when a neighbour had screamed up at her window to turn down the volume of her TV. She acknowledged that her windows were open due to the hot weather which may have resulted in noise. It had not received any complaints about noise from her home.
  33. The landlord said it was made aware of her complaints regarding 2 neighbours in April 2022. After investigation the case was referred to its safer neighbourhood team in July 2022. It made several attempts to contact her by phone and email. She responded agreeing to discuss her concerns with its specialist. It opened an ASB case on 12 August 2022 with a risk assessment and action plan. It contacted the police and the other landlord. The other landlord said that counter allegations were made by its resident against her. It agreed to a joint visit to all parties to give advice. It completed its visit on 10 November 2022. It received no further reports for several months and she confirmed she was happy for it to close the case.
  34. Regarding the neighbour walking her dog near the resident’s home, the landlord said it contacted the other landlord to make them aware. They spoke to their tenant about walking in the area. This could not be enforced as there was no evidence of them committing an offence on the video. It provided an update by email. With respect to the incident with the masked man near the bin store, there was no evidence of an assault on the video, but it acknowledged this was a “dreadful incident”. This was reported to the police who responded that they could not take any action as there was insufficient evidence. It offered to move the resident but this was not something she wished to consider.
  35. The landlord received further videos of shouting but these did not identify the people. This was shared with the police who said it was a verbal argument and no further action was taken. It completed a review of her reported ASB in October 2023. It provided ASB diary sheets and its noise app information. It received no submissions over the following 3 months. It could not take enforcement action against the 2 alleged perpetrators as the evidence provided did not support this. In order to take legal action, it required evidence that met the threshold to go to court. It had worked with the police and other landlord to try and evidence any ASB and offered mediation. She had advised in January 2024 that there had been no further incidents.
  36. The landlord said it had raised target hardening on its system in October 2023. But the external and communal areas of the building were not its responsibility and it had not completed the actions. It should have explained this at the time and referred the matter to the management company to arrange. It apologised for the lack of action, something it would learn from.
  37. In its response the landlord acknowledged that further risk assessments were not carried out to assess the resident’s wellbeing and mental health during the case. There were no records on its system about her mental health until January 2024. Its safer neighbourhood team felt it had offered correct advice and support. But it had not been clear about who was managing the case at times and apologised for the lack of clarity.
  38. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £500 compensation comprising £100 for the confusion of who was managing the case, £200 for confusion over security measures and the lack of communication, and £200 for failing to acknowledge and respond to her mental wellbeing (A further £200 was offered for complaint handling totalling £700). She had considered that her case was comparative to one determined by the Ombudsman in which redress was offered at £11,000. It had reviewed the case and confirmed that each case had its own individual circumstances and it did not believe the incidents were comparable.
  39. The landlord apologised for any distress and that its service had fallen below its expected standards. It identified its learning from the complaint as follows:
    1. It would review its ASB policy to ensure that clear responsibilities were identified.
    2. It would refer target hardening and repairs to the managing agent.
    3. It would ensure that risk assessments and wellbeing were reviewed throughout cases that were ongoing for a period of time.
  40. The landlord’s response was comprehensive and set out its actions in relation to each reported incident. 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 ensures that it is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the reported issues, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
  41. We recognise that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ASB. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate each report and has appropriately advised what actions it has taken. It was appropriate to acknowledge its failings and offer redress. Its compensation offer was reasonable an in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. It also appropriately set out its learning from the complaint.
  42. The resident raised a further complaint in August 2024 about other issues and repeated her ASB concerns. In the landlord’s responses it referred her to its previous stage 2 response. It acknowledged a further report made in June 2024 and had asked her for further information. This related to young people hanging around the bin store. It could not see that the information had been provided and it was unable to progress this or the exact details of the incident. It provided contact details for victim support. It acknowledged that it had not directed this to its safer neighbourhood team and offered £100 for failing to properly assign her ASB report.
  43. In the landlord’s explanation to us it said it had offered the resident tenancy support, mediation, and a move to alternative accommodation. It acknowledged that the managing agent had been slow to respond to its requests for communal repairs and this had been escalated resulting in a pre-legal notification regarding their lack of response.
  44. The resident told us that she continues to experience ASB. She said that her letterbox remains broken along with the communal doors. She had not wanted to move as her GP and mental health support was nearby and she wanted to remain in the community. She continued to report her safety concerns and further incidents throughout 2024 and into 2025.
  45. In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it had investigated each of the resident’s reports of ASB. It took appropriate and proportionate measures to address the incidents. It used a range of tools such as mediation and liaised appropriately with other agencies. It acknowledged its failings and offered reasonable recompense. We have, therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.
  46. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to continue to pursue the outstanding repairs to the letterbox and communal doors, along with security lighting. It should also discuss the resident’s ongoing ASB concerns and follow its policy and procedure to address these.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. Following the resident’s complaint on 3 July 2022, the landlord provided what appears to be a stage 1 response on 19 July 2022. While the response asked the resident to make contact within 15 working days to discuss, it did not make specific reference to her rights to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied. This was a failing.
  3. We have seen evidence which shows that in January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to formally respond to 3 complaints. The resident made a further complaint on 6 July 2024 about the handling of ASB, which the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2024.
  4. It Is not clear whether there was an earlier stage 1 complaint response, or whether a stage 2 complaint response was issued. If it was a stage 2 response, given the time that had elapsed, it should have provided a new stage 1 response in 2024 enabling the resident an opportunity to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  5. That said, in both of the landlord’s complaint responses it recognised and acknowledged its failings. Its combined compensation offer of £250 was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. We have, therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that it breached data protection (GDPR) by disclosing she was an employee and resident to third parties is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £850. £50 offered in its stage 1 response, £700 offered in its stage 2 response, and £100 offered in its August complaint response (if not already paid).
  2. The landlord should continue to pursue the managing agent to complete repairs to the letterbox and communal doors, along with security lighting.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any ongoing ASB and security concerns and complete a new risk assessment and action plan.
  4. The landlord should also review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance and arrange for staff who deal with complaints to review the Ombudsman’s learning hub and complete the e-learning modules on complaint handling.