Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202411980)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411980

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

26 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is the assured joint tenant of the property, along with his wife, who will both be referred to as the resident. The property is a 3-bedroom house, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, he has told it multiple times that he and his wife both have mental health conditions.
In October 2018 the resident reported ASB to the landlord, including verbal abuse, the neighbour’s garden was ‘untidy’, and she did not clean up after her dog. It visited the resident, sent an ASB warning letter to the neighbour and spoke to her about the issues in November 2018. It sent a letter about her garden being untidy in May 2019. Between April and June 2020 the resident, and other residents of the street, reported further ASB. They said the neighbour was having noisy parties with lots of people breaching the COVID-19 restriction in place at the time. They also said she was playing loud music and dealing drugs. The landlord exchanged emails with the police, who provided information and said they had executed an unsuccessful drugs warrant. It sent the neighbour a COVID-19 warning letter and a final ASB warning letter. The resident and other neighbours reported similar ASB again in September 2021.
Between February and May 2023 the resident reported ASB and harassment from the neighbour. The landlord agreed to visit the neighbour and said it would complete a risk assessment (not provided). The resident and the landlord also exchanged emails about the neighbour parking vehicles to deliberately block his driveway. It explained it had no control over parking, but that it would work with the police, and offered him use of its new ASB app. It also offered mediation which was agreed to by the resident and the neighbour before she changed her mind. The landlord sent the neighbour a letter about her untidy garden on 26 June 2024. On 3 July 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
1. The neighbour having committed ASB since she moved to the street in 2018.
2. She had harassed him, and the state of her garden was a breach of her tenancy including a large amount of dog waste.
3. The landlord had not supported him or resolved the ASB.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 August 2024, in which it:
1. Set out a timeline of events and said it had investigated and closed multiple ASB cases between 2018 and 2022 due to it not having received further reports. Each time it said it had spoken to the resident and spoken to or wrote to the neighbour about the reported behaviour. These included untidy garden/presence of dog waste, noise, parties, parking issues and suspected drug dealing. It also said it had kept in contact with the police.
2. Explained the resident had reported harassment from the neighbour in 2023. It said it had met with him and offered to assist him with a rehousing application to the council. It also said it had offered mediation and use of its ASB app.
3. Concluded there had been no service failure, and it had investigated each report of ASB in line with its policy.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that he asked to escalate his complaint on 27 September 2024. Between 22 and 24 October 2024 the landlord exchanged emails with him and said it had withdrawn his stage 2 complaint, as it had not been able to visit him to discuss the current ASB. Between 15 and 28 November 2024 he emailed the landlord and the police to report suspected drug dealing and the condition of the neighbour’s garden. The landlord held a meeting, tried to visit the neighbour and called her to discuss the ASB and her support needs. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 28 November 2024 to ask why it had not responded to the stage 2 complaint. The police emailed the landlord on 2 December 2024 about their concerns over ASB caused by the neighbour, and the landlord agreed to a joint professionals meeting.
Between 4 and 9 December 2024 the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord including suspected drug dealing. The police attended the neighbour’s property and broke down the door. The landlord and police made a plan of action to gather evidence, door knock and letter other houses on the street, the police to issue a Community Protection Warning (CPW) and the landlord to issue an ASB warning. The neighbour also made a false report to the police about the resident, for which she was arrested. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 10 and 16 December 2024 about his stage 2 complaint, which it acknowledged on 16 December 2024. Between 18 December 2024 and 21 January 2025 the resident continued to report ASB. The police issued a CPW, and the landlord did a letter drop. The landlord held a multi-agency meeting, and arranged clearance of the neighbour’s garden, which she refused. It kept in contact with the police and said it would apply for an injunction. It provided its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025, in which it:
1. Said the resident had not reported ASB between March 2023 and July 2024.
2. Confirmed it was investigating reports of ASB from 2024 and working with the police. It was also arranging to clear the neighbour’s garden and remove the dog waste.
3. Repeated that there had not been a service failing between 2018 and 2023 and so it did not uphold the complaint.
Between 24 January 2025 and 27 March 2025 the resident continued to report ASB. He asked for help to buy a CCTV camera which the landlord refused. The police served the neighbour with a Community Protection Notice. The landlord asked the neighbour to sign an undertaking not to commit further ASB and banned one of her guests from visiting. It later decided that it would apply for an injunction and asked the resident to sign a witness statement in support which he did. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord has taken legal action, and tried to evict the neighbour but it did not go ahead. He believes this is because she has left her dog in her house and is now staying away. He said he has autism and did not know about the landlord’s complaints process until 2024, otherwise he would have made a complaint sooner. He also said it has taken the landlord too long to get to this stage, and he hopes the resident will be evicted.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord has not provided a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement including clauses. The resident has told the landlord that its tenancy agreements contain clauses that prohibit residents from committing nuisance or harassment, using their properties for criminal activity, or storing rubbish and “other unsightly objects” in their gardens. It is standard industry practice for tenancy agreements to include these types of clauses.
Under its ASB policies, from 2020 and 2023, the landlord will prioritise ASB by type, with ‘high’ involving violence, ‘medium’ involving damage to property, and ‘standard’ being other types of ASB. It says it will respond to standard reports of ASB within 5 working days. It says it will complete a risk assessment for each ASB case and will work in partnership with the police and other agencies. It will try to find early resolution and mutually agreed solutions. If this is not possible it can take a range of actions up to and including legal action against the perpetrator. The policy says it will take into account any vulnerabilities the reporting resident or the perpetrator has and will offer assistance and signpost to support services.
When the resident reported ASB in 2018 the landlord visited, sent a warning to the neighbour and spoke to her about the ASB. It is not known if it completed a risk assessment, or if this was part of its policy at the time. Its decision to close the case was reasonable and there was no process for this within its policy to follow. However, when further ASB occurred in 2019 the landlord closed the case prematurely. Within its stage 1 response it sets out its actions, but it has not provided evidence of these to this Service. While it sent several letters, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment, or considered the use of mediation or an acceptable behaviour contract, which was a failing. Positively, and in line with its policy, it started to work with the police over allegations of drug dealing. It was appropriate for the police to take the lead on a criminal matter.
When the landlord received further reports of ASB in 2020, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment. It did send warning letters, as per its policy, and contacted the police. It also said it was collecting diary sheets from other residents, which was positive. It sent what it called a “final warning”, but when the neighbour committed further ASB, it failed to take any further action. While it was reasonable to wait for the police to take action, or provide evidence, for suspected drug dealing, the landlord could have pursued the allegations of harassment and noise nuisance from parties. The landlord said it spoke to the neighbour in 2021 about the condition of her garden but has not provided evidence of this. When the resident, and others, reported ASB in September 2021 the landlord took no action, which was a failing. However, it correctly spoke and wrote to the neighbour in 2022 about her untidy garden.
Following the resident’s report of harassment in February 2023 the landlord correctly followed its policy by contacting the resident and said it would complete a risk assessment. However, there is no evidence it did which is a failing. It noted it discussed the history of ASB with the resident. There is no evidence it contacted the neighbour or took any action, which was a failing. Positively, following further reports of nuisance caused by inconsiderate parking the landlord offered mediation, in line with its policy. However, by this point the resident had been reporting ASB for 6 years and the offer should have been made much earlier.
The landlord said within its stage 1 response that it could not find any service failure. At stage 2 positively it confirmed it was investigating recent reports of ASB, but it confirmed its stage 1 response. There were failings. The landlord cannot demonstrate that it acted on every report of ASB, and there are gaps in the actions it should have taken. It also did not appear to consider the cumulative effect of the multiple reports of ASB over a significant period. The landlord, in addition, does not appear to have taken into account the resident’s vulnerabilities as it says it will under its ASB policy. The resident explained the impact the situation was having on his, and his wife’s mental health. While it did refer them for support, it did not do this until January 2024.
Since the end of the complaints process the landlord has taken a more robust approach, in line with its policy, which is positive. However, during the period the complaint relates to the landlord did not act quickly enough or follow its policy. There is no evidence of risk assessments, referrals for support, or action plans following each report. The resident has had to live with the neighbour causing noise nuisance, harassment, making a false police report, leaving dog faeces in her garden to pile up for extended periods of time, and her constant coming and going which he, and the police, suspect is drug dealing activity. There was maladministration. This caused significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident, who had been consistently reporting ASB, following and trusting in the process. To reflect the impact of the landlord’s handling failings, an order has been made that it pay £600 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord implemented a new complaints policy in April 2024 to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) in use from that month. The policy defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Code and says it welcomes expressions of dissatisfaction.
When the resident made his stage 1 complaint 3 months later there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it, which was not in compliance with its policy and paragraph 6.2 of the Code. Positively, it used its discretion to accept the complaint despite it relating to matters which occurred over 12 months previously. However, it delayed in providing its stage 1 response for 40 working days. This was not in compliance with its policy timeframe of 10 working days and paragraph 6.3 of the Code. It had also failed to ask for an extension of time as permitted under its policy and the Code. Within its response the landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise, or offer a remedy, for its complaint handling failings.
When the resident asked to escalate his complaint, after a delay of a month, the landlord said it had withdrawn his stage 2 complaint. It said in an email to him it had attempted to visit him to discuss the ASB, but “due to this meeting not going ahead, there is nothing further I can investigate and comment on at this time. Therefore, I do not have anything to review as this meeting was necessary to support and progress further”. When the resident said clearly that he wanted to escalate his complaint, the landlord replied, “I am not saying you cannot escalate your complaint in the future, or put a new complaint in but we need to first…contact you and discuss your reports”.
This was clearly and significantly not in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy, and paragraph 6.10 of the Code, which says “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. Its policy says it will escalate all complaints to stage 2 if asked to and no reason is required, as echoed by paragraph 6.12 of the Code. However, the resident did explain his reasons. When the Ombudsman asked the landlord to explain its decision it failed to reply.
Following further emails between the resident and the landlord it acknowledged escalation on 16 December 2024, nearly 3 months after his request. It provided its stage 2 response 23 working days later (or 79 working days after his request) which was not in compliance with its policy and paragraph 6.14 of the Code. The landlord again failed to recognise, acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failings within its response.
Due to the landlord’s delays, and initial refusal to escalate the complaint, the resident waited 119 working days for his complaint responses, against a policy timeframe of 40 working days, if both complaints had been acknowledged after 5 working days. This delayed his ability to progress his complaint and delayed his ability to ask the Ombudsman to investigate. It is also concerning that, having very recently implemented a new complaints policy, the landlord failed to follow it. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes and the landlord did not demonstrate these within its complaint handling. There was severe maladministration. To reflect the additional frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of case reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
While recognising that this complaint goes back several years, the landlord has failed to provide documents and evidence to this Service, which has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. In particular it has failed to provide:
1. A complete copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
2. The stage 1 complaint (supplied by the resident).
3. Evidence of acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint if it did so.
4. Records and evidence relating to all events within the timeline it provided within its stage 1 response.
5. A copy of the risk assessment it said it would complete in 2023 if it did so.
6. Evidence of the resident’s initial escalation request.
The landlord has also failed to keep records of the resident’s vulnerabilities. There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from a senior member of its executive team, for the failings detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,000 compensation made up of:
  1. £600 for the significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling reports of ASB.
  2. £400 for the additional frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide an update on the status of any legal action it has taken, or is in the process of taking, against the neighbour.
4. Contact the resident to update its records regarding his and his wife’s vulnerabilities.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide additional training to its complaint handling staff on complying with its complaints policy and the Code, with emphasis on complaint escalation.
2. Carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and provide a copy of the review report to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to provide proof of compliance with these orders to this Service by the stated deadlines.