Sage Homes RP Limited (202444531)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444531

Sage Homes RP Limited

24 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy which commenced in February 2021. The property is a 2- bedroom house. The housing records confirm the resident’s son has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The landlord engaged another housing provider to deliver its housing functions in 2018. The decision was reviewed in June 2023 and the service was transferred back under the landlord’s direct management in January 2024.
The landlord’s managing agent told the local authority in June 2023 that the resident had been subject to ASB for several months and asked for her rehousing priority banding to be reviewed or for her application to be referred back so that it could offer her a direct let. It also noted it had referred the resident’s reports of ASB to its tenancy enforcement team for investigation.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 29 February 2024. She said her children were struggling to share a bedroom and her ‘’son’s behavioural difficulties were becoming more persistent.’’ The landlord responded on the same day and noted that the local authority was struggling to find a suitable property. It told the resident on 15 March 2024 that her request to move by means of a direct letting had been approved, but it was unable to find a suitable property. The landlord arranged for the resident to view a property on 9 May 2024. She told the landlord on the same day that she would like to be considered for the property.
The landlord told the resident on 28 May 2024 that it was unable to offer her alternative accommodation. It said this was because the family did not meet the criteria for a move under its lettings policy.
The resident made a complaint on 10 June 2024. She said she had experienced ASB and the situation was affecting her family’s mental health. She noted the landlord had previously agreed to move her family and arranged for her to view a property. She said she was later advised the property had been offered to another family and her housing officer had failed to provide an explanation or respond to her telephone calls or emails.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024 and said:
1. The resident had reported 1 incident of ASB which involved the alleged perpetrator and a neighbour. Whilst it appreciated the incident would have been frightening, the ASB was not directed at her and there was no evidence she was harassed by the perpetrator.
2. The resident’s reports of ASB should have been referred onto its community safety team, who were responsible for investigating reports of ASB.
3. A member of staff verbally agreed to offer the resident a management move. This was not in accordance with its allocations policy or management move policy.
4. An ASB risk assessment was completed on 28 May 2024. Its community safety team concluded on 28 June 2024 that the resident did not meet the criteria for an urgent move. The decision would not change without additional supporting evidence from the police or other agencies. It was prepared to review the risk assessment if the resident had supporting evidence.
5. It would offer the resident £250 compensation for the identified service failures. This included £50 compensation for failing to manage her expectations regarding its allocations policy and management transfer policy, £150 compensation for incorrectly reserving a property for the resident and £50 compensation for its poor record-keeping in relation to the management move.
6. It had learnt from the complaint and would ensure its staff received training on ASB and managing residents’ expectations. It would also improve its record keeping, communication arrangements and ensure its senior management team were updated to avoid other residents suffering similar distress and inconvenience in the future.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 July 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 September 2024 and said:
1. Whilst it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, it took appropriate action to monitor the ASB and provided her with support.
2. It made genuine attempts to assist the resident to move, but was advised by the local authority that she did not meet the threshold for a move.
3. It could not offer the resident a management move unless she satisfied the conditions set out in the stage 1 complaint response and its lettings policy.
4. Its handling of the resident’s complaint was unacceptable and it failed to follow its complaints policy. This included repeatedly extending the complaint response deadline date without providing a justifiable reason.
5. It would increase its offer of compensation from £250 to £400 given its poor complaints handling.

Post complaint events.

The landlord told the resident on 10 June 2025 that it had conducted a review of her complaint and identified further failings. This included noting there had been significant delays in responding to the resident’s concerns and referring her reports of ASB to the appropriate team. It also said it failed to update the resident and this led to her having to repeatedly chase up the landlord. It increased its offer of compensation by £300 to £700 for the distress and inconvenience that was caused.
The landlord advised this Service that the resident did not accept the revised offer of compensation and she has not submitted any further reports of ASB since the final complaint stage 2 response was issued.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

A management agreement was put in place between the landlord and the managing agent and included details on the service standards to be delivered. The managing agent was required to investigate all reports of ASB and take proportionate action against tenants who breached the terms of their tenancy agreement. Performance indicators were put in place and the managing agent was required to report back on outcomes against these.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it takes a ‘‘harm centred approach’’ to tackling ASB. Reports of ASB are referred to its community safety team, who undertake an initial assessment to determine the level of risk and vulnerability. Residents are contacted within 5 working days if the report of ASB is considered to be a low to medium risk. Risk assessments are reviewed regularly and residents are kept updated. The landlord also works with partner agencies, makes referrals and takes legal action against perpetrators, where it is proportionate and reasonable to do so.
The landlord’s management transfer policy says it will consider offering a resident an urgent managed move if it is unsafe for them to remain in their home. This includes situations where there is a risk to life or severe harassment. Cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis and residents advised to contact the local authority if there is limited accommodation in the area or if it has 100% nomination rights over the landlord’s properties. The landlord says it will work with the local authority to demonstrate the need for a management transfer.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The landlord’s remedies policy says it will offer an apology and compensation if there has been a service failure which causes delays, stress or inconvenience to a resident. Awards between £250 and £500 are made where there has been a serious service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
On receipt of reports of alleged ASB, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and taking enforcement action, where appropriate.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Whilst it is acknowledged the managing agent delivered the housing functions until January 2024, it is this Service’s view that managing agents directly appointed by a landlord are an extension of the landlord itself. As such, this Service expects landlords to monitor performance of managing agents and take action to address any identified concerns.
The housing records confirm the managing agent told the local authority in June 2023 that the resident had been subject to ASB and this had been corroborated by evidence she provided on 11 May 2023. This included CCTV footage of her neighbour shouting abuse. The managing agent noted the resident had been subject to ASB for several months and confirmed that it had referred the matter to its tenancy enforcement team. Details of the ASB incidents were not shared with this Service. There is also no evidence it followed the matter up. This was a failure.
The resident told the managing agent on 4 December 2023 that she was frightened every time she went out of her front door. There is no evidence the managing agent responded to the resident’s concerns. This meant it failed to gather evidence and did not use the early intervention tools available to it, including mediation and referrals to other agencies.
The service was transferred back under the landlord’s direct management in January 2024. Whilst the decision to do this was not directly related to the resident’s complaint, it demonstrated the landlord was proactively monitoring the broad performance of the managing agent and wanted to improve the service offered to its residents.
The resident told the landlord on 5 March 2024 she was having problems with a person who she believed no longer lived in the area. No specific details were provided. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure and meant potential risks were not assessed and actions were not agreed with the resident. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was unaware what support the landlord would provide her with.
The resident told the landlord on 14 March 2024 that people were smoking drugs in the bike shed that was next to her home. Whilst the landlord responded on the following day, it did not address the resident’s concerns or advise her to contact the police. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this given illegal drugtaking is a criminal matter. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will do this.
The resident told the landlord on 22 May 2024 that she had provided evidence of ASB. This included threats to kill and reports of the perpetrator throwing stones at her windows. She said her children were scared and she wanted to know what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns.
The landlord offered to refer the resident’s ASB case to the local authority’s harassment panel and completed an ASB risk assessment with her on 28 May 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. It says landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. Failing to undertake a risk assessment at an early stage of an ASB report instantly puts residents at a disadvantage, and many other failings often follow.
It was noted on the risk assessment that the resident was subject to occasional ASB. This included an incident 3 weeks earlier when the perpetrator threw a road sign at the resident’s front door and threatened her partner. Details of the incident were not shared with this Service. Whilst it was noted that the perpetrator did not live in the neighbouring property, it was unclear whether they were a tenant of the landlord. This information was important as it would have determined what course of action, if any could be taken by the landlord. It would have also ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. The resident confirmed she had reported the incident to a partner agency. No overall risk score was included on the risk assessment.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted the partner agency for more information about the incident. This meant it did not take a multiagency approach to address the resident’s concerns and was not consistent with its ASB policy. There is also no evidence it agreed an action plan with the resident.
Agreeing an action plan helps landlords to manage residents’ expectations and keep them informed about the progress of the case. This can also reduce the stress and anxiety about the situation and provide confidence that the landlord has the matter under control. It also allows the landlord to show the range of solutions it has available to it and supports it to make clear and consistent decisions and ensure its staff are aware of the approach it is taking.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that it did not refer the resident’s reports of ASB to the relevant team and this meant it did not complete a risk assessment or manage the case when she first raised concerns. The landlord also noted that there was no evidence she was being harassed or had been subject to persistent and ongoing ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed that it could take no further action against the perpetrator given the lack of evidence. This would have provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord confirmed the case had been assigned to its community safety team and it would provide ASB training to its staff. Whilst this demonstrated it took learning from the complaint, the landlord did not offer any compensation for the identified service failures. This was not consistent with its remedies policy.
The landlord advised the resident on 5 July 2024 that she could ask the local authority to undertake an ASB review of her case and provided her with details of the criteria that needed to be met. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was being transparent.
The landlord reconfirmed its position on 3 September 2024 in its final complaint response. This included acknowledging that the service provided fell short of expected standards, its record-keeping was poor and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint, it also said it had taken appropriate action to monitor the ASB and provided the resident with support. This was confusing given the service failures that were identified. The landlord also again failed to offer the resident any compensation for the identified service failures.
In summary, the managing agent did not follow the landlord’s ASB policy. It did not refer the matter to its community safety team or undertake an ASB risk assessment in a timely manner. Its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to act on her reports of ASB at times. The landlord also initially failed to respond to the resident’s concerns, liaise with partner agencies or manage her expectations. The limited information included on the risk assessment meant it was unclear what course of action the landlord was planning to take. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s most recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it did not take action until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to follow its management transfer policy. It acknowledged on 2 July 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident should not have been offered a management move and confirmed she did not meet the criteria. Details on the relevant policy clauses were included in the complaint response. This provided clarity. Whilst the landlord apologised for the confusion that had been caused and acknowledged it could have managed the resident’s expectations better, its offer of £250 compensation cannot be considered reasonable in the circumstances given the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.
The landlord reconfirmed its position on 3 September 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting that the local authority had confirmed the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord’s response lacked empathy and did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this and to have apologised for the identified service failure. This would have helped rebuild trust. Whilst the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation by £150, no additional compensation was offered for this specific element of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to follow its management transfer policy and this caused confusion. The landlord apologised for the service failure in its stage 1 complaint response and identified learning from the complaint. Its offer of £250 compensation was, however, not reasonable in the circumstances given the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s most recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it did not take action until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move, for which it is ordered to pay £500 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made a complaint on 10 June 2024. The complaint was acknowledged on 18 June 2024. This was 6 working days after the resident raised her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not consistent with this Service’s complaints handling code (the Code).
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 July 2024. The complaint was acknowledged on 15 July 2025. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord told the resident on 12 August 2024 that it needed more time to investigate her complaint and would respond by 19 August 2024. Whilst this was consistent with its complaints policy, the landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the revised deadline date. It told the resident on 19 August 2024 that it would send a response to her complaint by 24 August 2024.
The landlord told the resident on 27 August 2024 that it was still waiting for information and it would issue its final complaint response on the following day.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 September 2024. This was some 2 months after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its final complaint response. It did, however, offer an apology and compensation for the delay in responding. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of ASB.
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request to move.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a management strategic review of this case. A copy of the review findings must be shared with this Service and must cover at minimum the following:
1. Its processes to ensure a satisfactory level of confidence in the calibre of service delivery by any of its engaged partners in respect of ASB casework.
2. Its staff awareness and control measures in place to ensure officers do not exceed their delegated authority in respect of transfer requests.
3. How it can best ensure that its complaint responses are not subject to extended delay or repeated extensions.

Recommendations

The landlord pays the £150 compensation previously offered to the resident for its poor complaints handling, if not already done so.