Thrive Homes Limited (202324757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324757

Thrive Homes Limited

23 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal door entry system to the resident’s block.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 8 December 2014. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has Multiple Sclerosis.
On 16 August 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord, in which she said:
1. She had ‘lost count’ of how many times she had emailed and called about the main communal door being broken and that ‘anyone could get in’. The resident said the door had been broken for ‘well over’ a year.
2. She had been reporting ASB by her neighbour for over a year. She said she was ‘living a nightmare’ had called the landlord, the police, the council, and her MP and although she was ‘getting there slowly’ she felt let down by the landlord. The resident said this situation was having a ‘massive’ impact on her health and wellbeing, she had multiple sclerosis and that she was now taking anti-depressant tablets prescribed by her doctor.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 August 2023. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was not satisfied that it had fulfilled its repair obligations with regards to the door entry system, which could have been repaired in a more appropriate timeframe than it was. It also said it should have picked up the issues with the communal door sooner through site inspections.
2. With regards to the resident’s reports of ASB:
  1. A letter had been issued to the neighbour regarding the ASB on 18 August 2023.
  2. A member of its customer relation team had been in weekly contact with the resident to keep her up to date with the progress of the ASB issues.
  3. It was in contact with the Police and other partnership agencies to try and eradicate this.
  4. The Police were currently gathering evidence to close the property under a closure order. The landlord said it would use the same evidence to obtain the injunction it needed.
3. It was sorry for the service the resident had received and, whilst there were times it acted fairly and reasonably, there were times when it either could have done more or done things differently. To put things right the landlord said:
  1. The communal door entry system would be attended to on 29 August 2023.
  2. Its contract and facilities team would be attending twice a month to carry out checks within the communal areas and report any future issues with the door.
  3. It would continue to deal with the ASB until these had been resolved.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 September 2023 saying the landlord constantly failed to fulfil the promises it made to her about completing the remedial works to the communal door entry system.
The resident emailed the landlord again the same day. The resident said she was currently filling in diary sheets, had had to call the police again on 1 September 2023, that she ‘suffered with MS,’ and that the situation was having a ‘massive strain on her life’. The resident said she was now on anti-depressant tablets. This email was forwarded to the complaints team noting it was about the scope of her stage 2 complaint.
On 27 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident thanking her for accepting its request for an extension, to 11 October 2023, for its stage 2 response. The landlord explained the reason for the extension was it had had to request further information. It explained this was because, despite being told by its contractor that the communal entry door had been repaired, this was not the case and it was still not secure.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 October 2023, apologising for this being a day later than agreed with the resident.
1. With regards to the communal door entry system, it said:
  1. It apologised for not fulfilling its repair responsibilities, acknowledging the coordination of the repairs should have been ‘done better’. The landlord said it had escalated its specialist door contractor to its management team as it had ‘let it down on a number of occasions’.
  2. To put things right:

(1) It had sought the opinion of a different specialist contractor who had made 2 recommendations and it had approved a quote for the overhaul of the whole door and frame, including the lock.

(2) This work had been provisionally scheduled for 19 October 2023 and would precede the installation of an updated door entry system.

(3) Following completion of the above works, it would review the time taken to complete the repairs and assess what further action needed to be taken to put things right, such as compensation. It would then contact the resident within 1 week of the works being completed in order to discuss the outcome of its assessment.

(4) It was currently reviewing the way it managed its door entry systems and was hoping to introduce some new systems which should be more reliable and easier to repair. As the resident had experienced numerous issues with the system at her block, it would recommend that her block was included in any future replacement program.

With regards to the ASB, it said:
1. It hoped the improvements to the communal door entry system would reduce access to non-residents but it would continue to investigate any incidents of ASB the resident experienced.
2. A ‘panel’ hearing was held on 11 October 2023 to review the resident’s case and to establish whether a management transfer to another property should be agreed.
3. The panel requested further information relating to the resident’s case and so a decision with regards to the management transfer was still pending. The landlord said it would keep the resident informed about any updates.
With regards to what it had learned from the complaint, the landlord said:
1. It would ensure any actions promised as part of a complaint response were carried out.
2. It would work closely and efficiently with its contractors to ensure any problems were resolved quickly and monitored to completion.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the communal door entry system to the resident’s block

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the repairs to the communal door entry system to the resident’s block. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and offered appropriate redress.
In this case, by the time of the landlord’s final response on 12 October 2023 almost 11 months had passed since the resident first reported there was an issue with the communal door on 18 November 2022. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repair to be completed, and it had still not been repaired.
On 19 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm a new communal door had been installed that day. However, the resident said it had not been installed for more than a few hours, before the buzzer connected to her phone started randomly ringing, non-stop. The resident said she had been told a new system would not be installed until 9 November 2023.
In an internal email on 23 October 2023 the landlord confirmed works to the door entry system itself were planned for 7-9 November 2023. However, on 14 and 17 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord asking why she had not received a call or email regarding the ‘no show’ on 9 November 2023.
On 27 November 2023, the landlord issued the follow-up response, promised in its stage 2 response of 12 October 2023. In this response the landlord offered its ‘sincere apologies’ for the impact these delays had on the resident. It then went on to say, following its conversation with the resident the previous week, it would like to offer her £450 compensation. The landlord said that this was in recognition of:
1. The length of time it took to repair the door entry system.
2. The effect these delays had on the ASB the resident had been experiencing.
3. The number of times she had to chase the landlord to resolve the door entry issues and the distress and inconvenience this would have caused
It has been noted that at the time of this follow-on response the remedial works had not been fully completed as the new door entry system was not installed until 14 December 2023. At this point more than 1 year had passed since the disrepair to the communal door entry system was first reported by the resident in November 2022.
This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repairs to be completed, most especially because the landlord had been aware as early as 3 January 2023 that the disrepair to the communal door was having a significant impact on the ASB she had been reporting. A repair record on that date stated that the job raised for the communal door had been bought forward from 26 to 23 January 2023 as ‘the resident was having issues with tenant upstairs’.
An internal email of 1 August 2023, from the resident’s Neighbourhood Officer also confirmed the urgent nature of the repair and that the repairs team had been asked to fix the communal front door ‘as a matter of urgency due to the ASB issues’.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in the repairs being completed and offered the resident £450 compensation, this was not proportionate given the excessive delay in the communal door entry issues being resolved, the missed opportunities to prioritise the repair and the level of impact this had on the resident, which in this case was considerable.
This has resulted in a finding of maladministration for which the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her an additional £550, bringing the total payable to £1,000. This being at the upper end of the amounts suggested in our remedies guidance for situations where there were failings which had a significant impact on the resident. It should be noted that were it not for the landlord’s apology, acknowledgement and offer of compensation a finding of severe maladministration would have been made in this case.
Whilst it is welcome that the landlord recognised the need to learn from the complaint, again we are not satisfied that this went far enough. As such, a further order has been made for it to review its handling of this case and to consider how, going forward, it might improve its handling of repairs when those repairs have been identified as contributory factor to ASB reports by its residents.

Resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

We are aware the resident had been experiencing ASB by her neighbour prior to the period covered in this report and the ASB was not resolved by the time of the landlord’s final response. However, we cannot consider matters that occurred more than 12 months before the complaint was made. Nor can we consider matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process.
We have not seen evidence of the report referred to by the landlord as having been received on 18 November 2022. However, we have seen evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on 11 January 2023, stating she was still experiencing ‘ongoing’ issues with her neighbour and there had been 6 people in the neighbour’s flat ‘the other night’.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 January 2023, to report ‘multiple youths’ trying to gain access to the neighbour’s property and that ‘it was clear’ he was not expecting them. The resident advised the landlord the police had attended.
The resident called again on 24 and 31 January 2023, and 6 February 2023 asking that her Sustainment and Intervention Officer call her.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that contact should be made within a maximum of 5 working days of a report being made, and any agreed action taken within 10 working days. However, the first record we have seen of the resident being contacted by her Sustainment and Intervention Officer was an ASB action plan set up on 3 April 2023, 5 months after the first report it said it had received in November 2022.
This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to put together an action plan and represents a failure on its part. That the resident had to constantly chase it for a response was a further failure which would have understandably caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The ASB action plan set up on 3 April 2023 noted the type of ASB as being noise from visitors to the neighbour’s property and suspected illegal activities. It was noted the landlord would look at an injunction or legal action, the Police were looking at a closure order, and the resident would be contacted weekly. It was also agreed that the resident would submit weekly diary sheets to her Sustainment and Intervention Officer, who would arrange collection if needed.
However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord’s actions with regards to it taking out an injunction or pursuing any legal action at that time. Further, the first contact made by the landlord was not 1 but 2 weeks later, on 15 April 2023. At this point a fortnightly review call was agreed. As such the landlord would have been expected to call the resident on 29 April 2023. However, the next contact was not until 5 June 2023, following the resident’s call to the landlord to say that her neighbour was again causing problems and that she had been told she would receive a call back but had not ‘heard a word’.
The resident called the landlord again:
1. On 6 July 2023, to advise that there were ‘criminals’ visiting the neighbour’s property ‘at all times through the night’ and causing noise nuisance. The resident asked that she be called back urgently.
2. On 7 July 2023, to advise that things had ‘started kicking off again’ and that she had asked for a call back from her Sustainment and Intervention Officer.
3. On 10 July 2023 to say she was expecting a call back that day, had chased it, but had heard nothing.
The resident’s Sustainment and Intervention Officer made a note on 12 July 2023 that they had spoken to the resident the previous day and had emailed diary sheets to her. They also noted the case was discussed at a Community Safety Partnership (ASBAG) that day and a Community Protection Warning (CPW) was to be served.
Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) were introduced by Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and bring together local partners to formulate and implement strategies to tackle crime, disorder, and antisocial behaviour in their communities.
On 25 July 2023, the ASB action plan was updated to say the resident’s Sustainment and Intervention Officer, together with a 3rd party community support officer, would be visiting the neighbour.
On 3 August 2023, the resident’s Sustainment and Intervention Officer, together with the police, visited the neighbour to him with the CPW and to explain the breaches to him.
The Sustainment and Intervention Officer and the police also visited the resident to update her regarding a potential closure order. The ASB action plan notes the police advised the resident that to get a closure order they would need to show the history, with dates and times, to the court. The resident was asked to complete diary sheets, which she agreed to do and which the Sustainment and Intervention Officer said they would collect.
The landlord attended further ASBAG meetings on 9 August, 13 September, and 11 October 2023:
1. At the meeting on 9 August 2023, it was noted the local council were to lead on building a case based on all the evidence coming in. The meeting minutes also note the landlord was ‘looking to get an injunction’ but otherwise had no further actions.
2. At the meeting on 13 September 2023, it was confirmed the landlord was supporting a management move for the resident. It was also confirmed that regular visits were being conducted by the police, who were looking at obtaining a Partial Closure Order. The minutes note 1 action for the landlord which was to ‘statement’ the neighbours breaches of the CPW served on him on 3 August 2023.
3. We have not seen the landlord’s response to its action from the meeting on 13 September 2023. However, it is reasonable to assume this had been done as there were no further actions for the landlord in relation to this matter following the ASBAG meeting on 11 October 2023. The minutes from that meeting again referred to a management move for the resident, although no timescales were set for this to take place.
The landlord issued its final response on 12 October 2023. In its response the landlord confirmed that a potential management move for the resident was discussed at the meeting on 11 October and that a decision from the panel was still pending. The landlord said the resident would be kept informed throughout this process.
On 19 October 2023, 1 week after its final response, the resident’s Sustainment and Intervention Officer emailed her to advise that a management move had been conditionally agreed.
Following this the landlord continued to:
1. Work with ASBAG, attending meetings on 8 November 2023, 13 December 2023, and 14 February 2024. There were no actions for the landlord following these meetings.
2. Engage with the local council with regards to building a case of all the evidence:
  1. On 3 November 2023, the council emailed the landlord about a case review panel (‘Community Trigger’) meeting scheduled to take place on 24 November 2023. The council advised the landlord it would need to supply its ‘bundle of documents’ within the next 7 days.
  2. In an internal email on 10 November 2023, the Sustainment and Intervention Officer confirmed they had spoken to the council and it had been agreed for them to provide the ‘bundle of documents’ within the next week. This they did, providing the required information on 17 November 2023.
Whilst we acknowledge the impact the reported ASB had on the resident, in general the landlord’s response to her reports was reasonable. This is because, it involved the resident in the action plan and worked in partnership with a range of professionals to resolve the issues reported by the resident, including the police, support services, the council and ASBAG. It also, together with the police, served the neighbour with a warning letter. The impact of the unreasonable delay in the communal door entry system being repaired has been considered separately in this report.
Having been unable to resolve the ASB, the landlord also considered and approved the resident for a conditional move in October 2023. The Sustainment and Intervention Officer sought to manage the residents expectation explaining it could potentially take between 3-12 months and so would not be an immediate resolution.
It our understanding that the resident moved at some point on or around 7 June 2024. This is because on 7 June 2025, the resident emailed us to say that she had been moved to another property, she had lived there for nearly a year and things were ‘so much better’.
However, there were a number of failures with regard to the landlord’s communication with the resident, which resulted in unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. For this reason, a finding of maladministration has been made.
To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation. This figure being in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
The landlord has also been ordered to review its communication with the resident in this case and confirm to us what action it intends to take in order to ensure similar failing do not occur again going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal door entry system to the resident’s block
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,250 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the excessive delay in repairing the communal door entry system to her block and the significant impact this had on her. This amount includes the £450 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
  2. £250 for its communication failures in respect of its handling of her reports of ASB by her neighbour.
  3. The additional compensation that we have ordered should be paid directly to the resident.
3. To carry out a review of its handling of the repairs to the communal door entry system to the resident’s block and to consider on how, going forward, it might improve its handling of repairs when those repairs have been identified as contributory factor in relation to ASB reports by its residents.
4. To carry out a review of its communication with the resident in this case and confirm to us what action it intends to take in order to ensure similar failing do not occur again going forward.
5. Confirm its compliance with these orders.