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

Together Housing Association Limited (202332525)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332525

Together Housing Association Limited

19 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in May 2022 to report ASB by her neighbour. Her reports included verbal abuse, items left blocking the communal right of way and excessive noise.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 May 2023. She said there was ongoing ASB from her neighbour and felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve this.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. It advised that it continued to monitor the situation between the resident and her neighbour. It said it would inspect the shared right of way for any access issues and offered mediation to help resolve the situation.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 as she was unhappy with its stage 1 response. She said that issues were worsening, and the landlord had not addressed the situation regarding her access to the property becoming obstructed.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 3 November 2023. It apologised for its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and said it found no service failures in its handling of the reports of ASB. It explained it hoped that mediation arranged between the resident and her neighbour would bring about a resolution to the issues she was facing.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted it to resolve the ASB and ensure that access to the property was free from obstruction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us her mental health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the ASB. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from May 2022 leading up to its final response on 3 November 2023. Any events prior to May 2022 and following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord has adopted the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause:
    1. Harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  3. A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives a report of ASB. The first is to gather evidence and undertake a proportionate investigation. The second is to balance that evidence and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if it investigated fairly and took all the action it could.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2022 to report that her neighbour was causing ASB. She said the police had contacted her several times due to allegations made against her by her neighbour, all of which were found to be false. She said her neighbour had been verbally abusive and that the stress caused by the conflict was making her unwell.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it acted appropriately by opening a new ASB case, conducting a risk assessment and issuing diary sheets to the resident for her to log further incidents. Its actions were proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
  6. It contacted the resident to gather an update on the case on 10 June 2022. This was in line with its policy and showed its consideration of the her concerns. It said that as no further incidents were reported the ASB case would be closed.
  7. The police contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 to advise they had received a report of a boundary issue involving the resident. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if it opened a new ASB case because of this contact. It spoke to both parties and issued an action plan advising them to be respectful of each other’s property boundaries whilst remaining neighbourly. It advised it would review the situation on 11 August 2022.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord to chase up this review twice in September 2022 as she had received no contact. She made 2 further reports of obstructions within the shared access to the property, on 8 November 2022 and 2 December 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to this contact. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and to act in line with its ASB policy.
  9. Between April and May 2023, the police contacted the landlord on several occasions, concerned that issues were escalating between the resident and her neighbour. Both residents had told the landlord that they were experiencing issues with ASB. In response to this it opened an ASB case on 5 June 2023. Actions it took including completing a risk assessment, conducting home visits, producing action plans and suggesting mediation, were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. It demonstrated that, following the period of inaction, it was now listening to the resident’s concerns and took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the issues.
  10. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was continuing to monitor the situation. It re-iterated the importance of the resident completing diary sheets and offered to arrange mediation to work towards a resolution to the dispute. It said it would inspect the communal walkways for any obstructions and would take necessary action to ensure they were accessible. Its response was appropriate and addressed the points raised by the resident.
  11. The tenancy agreement issued by the landlord states that residents must not allow any planting, trees, hedges or shrubs to become overgrown, block light, access or cause obstruction. Permission must be sought to plant anything that may grow to 2 metres high, and residents should ensure that shared areas are kept clean, tidy and clear of obstruction.
  12. The records show the resident continued to express concerns over obstructions affecting her access to the communal walkways in her conversations with the landlord. It inspected the area on 11 October 2023 and discussed practical alternative access arrangements with the resident to help ease tensions. It also agreed to make checks around planting that had taken place in the area by her neighbour and if this was suitable. These actions demonstrated the landlord’s ongoing commitment to find a resolution to the issues reported by the resident.
  13. Although the evidence shows that the landlord investigated if permission was granted to plant in the communal area there is no evidence that it took any further action based on its findings. It encouraged the resident to discuss obstructions in the communal walkways, in the upcoming mediation session with her neighbour. It would have been reasonable for it to address if the plants were suitable for the communal area with the involved parties. This would have enabled it to manage the resident’s expectations and ensure that terms set out in its tenancy agreement were adhered to. As such we have made recommendations relating to this below.
  14. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it was actively dealing with the ASB issues through its open case and had found no service failures. The evidence shows it regularly reviewed the case, kept in touch with the involved parties and facilitated mediation to seek a resolution. These actions were positive and appropriate. The response referred to the resident’s concerns over obstructions to access and said it hoped mediation would provide a resolution to the issues she was experiencing. It is our opinion that whilst the landlord could have gone further to address the resident’s concerns regarding this issue in its response, its overall approach was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
  15. In conclusion, although there were noted shortcomings in some aspects of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, these were not such as to detract from its overall measures to resolve the issues. It took action in line with its policy and procedures when handling the reports of ASB. It was reasonable that it discussed the concerns with the resident and explain the reasons for its decisions in its complaint responses. While communication with the resident at points could have been timelier, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the issues. Due to this, the Ombudsman has found no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of ASB.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 32 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This is significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy. Its response did not address, explain, nor apologise for this delay which was inappropriate.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 to discuss parts of the stage 1 response with which she was unhappy. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to get back to her and because of this did not escalate her complaint, leading to further delays in the complaint handling.
  4. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 which were outside of the timescales set out in its policy. Despite chasing the landlord on 11 September 2023 for an update on her escalation request, it failed to escalate the complaint until further contact from the resident on 3 October 2023. This was 72 working days from her original escalation request and along with the poor communication by the landlord was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord apologised for its delay in escalating the complaint in its stage 2 response. It failed however to offer the resident redress in line with its compensation policy. This was unreasonable given the numerous delays experienced by the resident and we have made an order below to address this.
  6. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have determined £100 would put right things right for the resident in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord conducts an inspection of the shared access routes to the property for any obstructions. Should it find any it should set out to the resident how these will be managed.