The Community Housing Group Limited (202426589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426589

The Community Housing Group Limited

30 April 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Its members of staff’s behaviour.
3. Outstanding repairs.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. We have not had sight of a copy of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy began in 2016. The resident resides with her husband and child. The landlord has no vulnerabilities registered for the resident or her household.
On 29 March 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary, she said:
1. Over the past year, she had been subjected to criminal damage, harassment, threatening behaviour, and verbal abuse from her neighbours. This had impacted her and her household’s health and well-being.
2. She had made numerous attempts to contact the landlord. She waited 3 weeks for a 1-line email reply.
3. On 5 June 2023 she logged her ASB report via the landlord’s portal.
4. She attended a meeting with the landlord on 15 June 2023, but this was to discuss her complaint about the member of staff. She was, however, assigned an officer to deal with the ASB. When the resident met with the officer, they were insensitive, condescending, and disrespectful to the situation. The officer refused to investigate and would not provide any contact details for the resident to forward evidence to.
5. She then met with another officer on 2 August 2023. She felt that the officer took a disinterested approach. They did not check the supporting information she had provided. She considered their suggestion that she relocate to resolve the issues was inappropriate.
On 26 April 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary, it said:
1. It understood that there were no ASB reports from July 2023 until April 2024 when this complaint was received. This would indicate that there had been a degree of resolution.
2. It was satisfied that it had communicated with the resident. It had done so in a formal meeting. It also conducted a follow up visit, but the resident did not wish to engage at that time.
3. Its records showed that the resident had reported an ASB issue on 5 June 2023 regarding verbal abuse and property damage. A case was opened on 6 June 2023. In addition, it started its formal complaints process which was concluded on 20 June 2023.
4. It offered sign posting for support for the resident.
5. It had seen evidence that resolutions were offered in the form of an invitation to the office to discuss her concerns in person and a follow up visit. This was done with all parties involved. It referred to external agencies where required.
6. It said it had considered the supporting evidence provided by the resident. It had removed broken glass and a table. It said a skip was being ordered to address the concerns.
The resident remained dissatisfied, so the landlord invited her into the office for a meeting on 2 July 2024. It is unknown what was discussed at the meeting as no minutes have been provided in the landlord’s records.
On 10 July 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary, it said:
1. The rubbish that neighbours were putting into the bins is a matter for the local authority to deal with. The glass and rubbish on the front had been removed and there had been no reoccurrence.
2. There was insufficient evidence to show that the neighbour had been filming the resident out of the window. It said these issues were not subject to its ASB procedure.
3. It acknowledged that it had not acted in accordance with its ASB procedure because:
  1. It had not responded to her ASB complaints in a timely manner.
  2. It had not dealt with all aspects of the ASB complaint. In particular, it had not addressed the ongoing issue with the dog, loud music, and disruption in the street.
  3. Feedback had not been provided to the resident on actions and outcomes in line with data protection, or about some of the actions it had agreed as part of the resident’s complaint in April 2023.
  4. It had not followed up in writing, monitored the issues, or provided support.
  5. No meaningful early intervention had been provided to resolve the ASB issues.
  6. It had not provided an ASB action plan.
  7. It had not worked with partner agencies to meditate and find a solution. However, it noted that police had been involved on a number of occasions in 2023 and 2024, and that the resident had been supported by victim support.
  8. Mediation had not been offered between the parties and the situation had now potentially gone on for too long for this to be a solution and have the ability to successfully work.
4. It noted that there were no ASB reports made from July 2023 until April 2024. It said that it had agreed to monitor, and the responsibility was on both the landlord and the resident.
5. It would review all of the evidence supplied and set out actions that it would take. It would also arrange a meeting with its staff members to try to restore relationships.
6. It had attended the property to look into fitting a back gate, so she did not have to use the front.
7. It offered £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB.
8. It also mentioned the following repairs and provided dates of when they would be completed:
  1. Sealant on bath and boxing in would be completed on 13 July 2024.
  2. It had inspected the lounge ceiling and agreed it required plastering.
  3. Loose steps at the back of the property would be fixed on 13 July 2024.
  4. The loft insulation was on hold. It had approached the resident in October 2023, but she had declined the survey. It was in the process of looking at other contractors to support the programme.

Post complaint

On 9 October 2024, the resident contacted this Service. She said that the ASB was continuing, and her landlord had not followed its policy. She said she was still living with the uncertainty of when it would be resolved. The repairs had also been delayed for unreasonable periods of time and the landlord had failed to acknowledge that.
The resident has also recently told us that in April 2025, the ASB was continuing. She said that she still had not been given an action plan so was unsure of what the landlord was doing. The back gate had been fitted but it required repairs as it was not fitted correctly. She was also still waiting for the steps outside to be repaired properly as they had only had a temporary fix.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident states that she is seeking compensation for the impact of the issue on her physical and mental health. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint.

Policies and guidance

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will provide action plans to ensure that it is managing expectations and deliver on what it said it was going to. It will also complete vulnerability risk assessments. It will consider appropriate solutions these would include legal and non-legal solutions. It will respond to a report within 3 working days.
The landlord’s website states that it has 3 main categories of repairs. It will respond to ‘emergency’ repairs within 24 hours, ‘quick response’ repairs within 14 days, and ‘standard’ repairs within 28 days.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In March 2024 when the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she said that she had been reporting incidents about her neighbour for the past year.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s initial report of ASB was made in March 2023. It failed, however, to explain how or if it responded at that time. There are no records in support of any actions taken by the landlord in March 2023. The landlord refers to a previous formal complaint that was concluded on 20 June 2023. However, reference to this complaint in the landlord’s response is confusing as it is unclear how it relates to this case. Furthermore, this Service was not provided with a copy of this particular complaint to be able to consider the relevance. The resident informed this Service that the complaint in June 2023 was a separate complaint about a member of staff.
The landlord said that the resident had reported verbal abuse and property damage on 5 June 2023. In response, it had opened an ASB case on 6 June 2023. It said it had seen evidence that it had offered resolutions in the form of an invite into the office to discuss the issues. It also said that it had referred matters to external agencies. The complaint response was confusing and failed to clarify what the landlord did and when. The records provided to this Service do not support the landlord’s version of events either. The landlord’s formal complaint response is its opportunity to set out exactly what it has done to resolve a complaint. This lack of clarity was a failing.
The landlord changed its position in its stage 2 complaint response. It agreed that it had not acted in accordance with its ASB procedure. It provided a comprehensive list of where it had failed. Its response was appropriate given that the lack of supporting records.
The landlord said that it had not received any reports from July 2023 to April 2024. This Service acknowledges that the resident disagrees with this version of events. The evidence provided by the resident, however, does not show that reports were made directly to the landlord during this period. The resident advised that she had been reporting matters to the police also. Despite the lack of new reports, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to monitor the case as it said it would. If it had, then it would have been aware of the reports the resident had made to the police during this period, and it could have provided further support.
The landlord sought to put matters right and advised that it would review the evidence and implement its ASB procedure. It set out what action it would consider taking. It also agreed to put in a gate at the rear of the property, so the resident did not need to exit her property at the front. It offered £250 compensation for the impact its failings had on the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were appropriate. The level of compensation it offered to the resident, however, was disproportionately low and did not reflect the impact on the resident. Threatening behaviour, abusive language, and using a dog to intimidate the resident were just some of the reports she had made. She had also informed the landlord that the behaviour was affecting her mental and physical health as well as her household members including her children. She was also at some points staying away from her home because of the ASB. She then had to spend considerable time and effort contacting the landlord and pursuing her complaint further.
Given the unexplained periods of delay without action by the landlord, the distress and inconvenience this caused, and the time and effort spent by the resident chasing the issues, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £650 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where a failure has adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has acknowledged some failings, but its offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified.
It is acknowledged that the resident has said that the landlord has not done what it said it would in its stage 2 response, and the issues are continuing. An order will therefore be made below to ensure that the landlord sets out an action plan of what steps it will now take to try to resolve the ASB issues. The resident said that she would even consider moving if necessary. The landlord should also advise the resident what her options are in respect of this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its members of staff

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about its staff members in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to resolve matters earlier. In its stage 2 response, it mentioned a visit in which its officers attended the resident’s property. It said having viewed camera footage, it was satisfied that its staff members had acted professionally. It failed to comment on the other incidents that the resident had raised in her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s response did not show that it had listened to the resident and taken her concerns seriously. The one incident it did investigate did not show a meaningful investigation. It is not evident that it interviewed the members of staff in question or sought to further discuss the resident’s concerns with her. Its responses did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship.
In summary this Service considers that the above failings amounted to maladministration. This failing meant that the resident had to spend considerable time and effort pursuing her complaint further, despite which, she was left without an adequate response to her concerns. An order for £200 has therefore been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience this caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs

The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that the outstanding repairs had been raised by the resident both during its meeting and after by email. This Service has not been provided any records showing what was discussed. This is a record keeping failure. The resident advised that she had also raised these concerns as part of her stage 1 complaint, but it was not documented. She said that she informed the landlord again when she attended the meeting about her stage 2 complaint. She said that she had been dealing with the outstanding repairs for quite some time.
The landlord’s complaint response listed the repairs and actions it will take. It failed, however, to investigate its handling of the repairs, which was a further failing. As noted above, the complaint response is an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate what actions it had taken, and this missed opportunity to do so would have been frustrating for the resident.
This Service asked the landlord to provide its records relevant to the repairs which it did. In respect of the sealant around the bath, the landlord’s records state that this was reported on 17 June 2024. It then states it attended on 25 June 2024, but it is unclear what it did during this visit. The records then state that the repairs were completed on 13 July 2024. This repair was therefore completed within 27 days which was within its own timescales.
This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states that there was a hole in her living room ceiling and the impact this would have caused. However, the Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns as a formal complaint sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live’. Given the passage of time, and the evidence provided, this Service has only been able to consider the issue from when it was raised on 28 April 2024. This is also because there are no records to show any earlier reports.
The landlord’s records state that it attended on 3 May 2024 to cut back a redundant gas pipe so that plaster works could be carried out. It then attended again on 26 June 2024, but its records are not clear on why it attended again. It states that the repairs were then completed on 7 November 2024. This was 198 days after the issue was raised on 28 April 2024. This was outside of its own time scales and unreasonable. The landlord failed to provide any explanation for its delays. There are also no records to show that it had communicated any delays to the resident. This is a failing in its handling of the matter.
In respect of the step, the landlord provided records that related to repairs that were raised and attended to in January 2023. Its stage 2 response said that it would repair the loose steps on 13 July 2024. However, the repair records do not coincide with the landlord’s stage 2 response. This shows a further record keeping failure.
This Service has not therefore been able to determine that this repair was completed in line with the landlord’s policy. This is a failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue the matter further. The resident has also advised this Service that the step was only temporary repaired and still requires further works. An order has therefore been made to ensure the landlord contacts the resident to set out its position in respect of further works required to the steps.
The landlord’s explanation in respect of the loft insulation was confusing. It was unclear whether the works were because of a repair or part of a planned programme of works. It was also vague as to whether/when the option to have the loft insulation installed would be available to the resident in the future. An order has therefore been made below to ensure the landlord sets out its position in respect of when the resident will be able to have loft insulation installed.
In summary, this Service considers the failings above amount to maladministration. The landlord failed to respond within its own time frames. It failed to evidence that it had communicated any delays to the resident. Its gaps in its records made it difficult to assess its handling of some of the repairs. It also failed to clearly set out its position in respect of the loft insulation. The resident had the inconvenience of chasing matters up with the landlord and having to pursue her complaint further. An order has therefore been made for £350 compensation to reflect the impact these failings had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint responses were issued in accordance with its own time frames. While there was a slight delay in its stage 2 response being issued, the landlord kept the resident informed, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to thoroughly address all of the issues raised by the resident, in particular, the resident’s concerns about its members of staff and its handling of the repairs.
The complaint responses also did not demonstrate any learning. The comments that it had not acted in accordance with its ASB policy also did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns, without receiving a detailed response.
In summary, the failings in its complaint handling amount to maladministration. The responses demonstrated a lack of meaningful investigation. The landlord also failed to show how it would learn from the failings it had identified. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. An order for £150 has been made to reflect the impact the failings had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its staff members.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,350. £250 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £650 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about its staff members.
  3. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
  4. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within the next 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss verbally and provide confirmation in writing the following:
1. An action plan of what steps it will now take to address the ongoing ASB. The action plan should include advice about any options the resident may have to move if she wishes to.
2. It should set out its position in respect of works required to the step. Where works are required, it should provide timescales of when it will complete the repairs.
3. It should set out its position in respect of the back gate and raise any repairs if necessary and provide timescales for completion.
4. It should also set out its position relative to the loft insulation and whether this will be an option for the resident in the future and if so when.
5. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is also ordered to complete a review into the failings identified in this investigation to identify how it can prevent similar happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Its poor communication.
2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
3. A copy of the landlord’s review should be provided to this Service within 8 weeks.