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

Together Housing Association Limited (202418809)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418809

Together Housing Association Limited

3 March 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a 2-bedroom house and had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The landlord had recorded several vulnerabilities concerning the resident, including mental and physical health issues.
  3. The neighbour the resident complained about was a private tenant but an employee of the landlord at the time.
  4. Between December 2023 and February 2024, the resident expressed concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, including his playing loud music while in her garden, which impacted her enjoyment of the space. She reported instances where the neighbour blocked the road with his vehicle and directed a flashlight into her property and security cameras, which she said was intimidating. She said the neighbour had referred to her and her husband using derogatory names, one of which she claimed was directed at her religion. The resident stated that his actions left her feeling harassed and intimidated.
  5. On 20 February 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that:
    1. The neighbour had admitted to making derogatory comments in frustration and apologised.
    2. It could not be determined from the CCTV footage where the lights were coming from.
    3. The police had confirmed that they were not taking further action against the neighbour.
  6. The ASB case was closed on 3 April 2024 as the resident terminated her tenancy.
  7. On 10 June 2024, the resident complained to the landlord and said that she experienced harassment and intimidation from her former neighbour, which impacted both her and her husband’s physical and mental health. The resident requested a new property or financial compensation for the distress she had been caused.
  8. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 July 2024 and said that:
    1. It was sorry that an ASB case was not opened until 19 December 2023.
    2. It contacted the resident on 21 occasions while the case was opened and worked with the police and the local authority.
    3. It should have sent regular action plans, but its communication with the resident had been ongoing and consistent.
    4. After speaking with the resident, the impact of the ASB was understood, but this was not mentioned in the complaint. If it had been, referrals for support could have been made.
    5. It offered £300 for the failings and £100 for the impact on the resident.
  9. On 10 July 2024, the resident escalated her complaint, requesting a formal apology from the Housing Officer and either a new property or compensation that recognised the landlord’s failings and the impact they caused.
  10. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 8 August 2024 which confirmed that it was sorry for the failings in its service delivery and confirmed that:
    1. It had increased the compensation to £700 to recognise the impact of the failings.
    2. It had waived the clear and clean charge after the resident vacated the property.
    3. It would refer the resident to support services with her consent.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint because she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled the ASB. She asked us to assess the level of compensation offered. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy categorises ASB according to the nature and seriousness of the complaint. For example, reports of harassment, verbal abuse and noise would be recorded and responded to within 5 working days.
  2. The ASB policy explains that the landlord will support residents by conducting a risk assessment at the start of each ASB case and performing regular reassessments. It also explains that the landlord will create an action plan, which will be reviewed consistently throughout the case, and offer frequent updates to residents, even when progress is minimal or lacking.
  3. The resident made an initial report on 12 December 2023 of her neighbour shining lights into her house and her security cameras. The resident described the behaviour as harassment and said she felt intimidated by his actions.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the report within 5 working days and informed the resident that the matter would be forwarded to the neighbour’s Line Manager. Evidence indicates that the ASB reports were initially mishandled because the neighbour involved was an employee of the landlord. As a result, the reports were sent directly to his manager instead of the ASB team, which caused a delay in assigning the case.
  5. The landlord addressed the situation based on its internal policies, with input from the neighbour’s manager. Once the landlord recognised that the issue was related to ASB rather than a complaint about employee conduct, it passed the complaint to the relevant team.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed opening an ASB case until 19 December 2023 for which it apologised. We have confirmed with the landlord that the date logged on its ASB case summary indicates when a case is opened. The case was opened on 9 January 2024, 12 working days later than the date the landlord indicated. Therefore, the landlord did not add additional delays.
  7. The landlord said it provided the resident with frequent contact during the case. The evidence shows that:
    1. The landlord said it had contacted the resident on 6 occasions in December 2023. The ASB case summary shows 6 entries for that month, all of which referenced communications with the resident on 11 January 2024.
    2. On 21 December, the resident was told “not to ring the contact centre or contact anyone else as it was confusing matters, not to email me [the case officer], and to save evidence until the home visit [on 4 January 2024].”
    3. The resident requested callbacks on 29 December 2023, 3, and 4 January 2024. Her call was returned on 5 January 2024, outside the 5-working-day response time.
  8. The evidence indicates that the resident did not receive regular communication from the landlord, which led her to feel “uncertain” and “unheard.” The landlord’s response, stating that the resident should not contact or email them, was inappropriate and showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation. Additionally, the response contradicts the ASB policy, which states that incidents must be reported promptly so that the landlord can respond quickly and can be reported through email, telephone and other channels.
  9. Our Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights highlights key concerns regarding communication and relationships between residents and landlords. The key themes include insensitivity, disregarding residents’ feelings, and failing to acknowledge their lived experiences.
  10. For instance, in the letter sent by the landlord on 4 January 2024, the resident was instructed to cease submitting “irrelevant” footage and was strongly advised against making “false accusations,” with the phrase “false accusations” emphasised. The response was inappropriate and showed a lack of empathy and impartiality without properly investigating the reports and failing to acknowledge her lived experience. 
  11. The landlord consistently told the resident to provide clear evidence before acting. While we recognise the necessity of evidence to advance a case, the landlord did not clarify what constituted “clear evidence” or explain why the resident’s submissions—such as emails, photographs, and video evidence—were deemed insufficient or “irrelevant”.
  12. The resident spent time contacting the landlord for updates on her case despite the landlord’s policy stating that it would maintain regular contact with the resident, even when there was little or no progress to report. This was exacerbated by the absence of an action plan.
  13. The landlord failed to implement a plan, leaving the resident feeling uncertain about the progress of her case and whether her reports were being taken seriously. An action plan is crucial for effectively addressing ASB; without it, it can undermine the landlord’s response and result in additional issues. An action plan assists landlords in managing residents’ expectations, keeping them informed about case progress, and providing reassurance that the situation is under control. The landlord failed to adhere to its own policy by not creating a plan that could be regularly reviewed throughout the case.
  14. The landlord cancelled a home visit scheduled for 4 January 2024 without providing a clear explanation and informing the resident of the reason for the cancellation.
  15. The resident prepared for the visit to address her concerns and discuss incidents that the landlord had specifically instructed her not to report until after the meeting. It is unreasonable that the meeting was ultimately rescheduled for 18 January 2024, resulting in a delay of 24 working days from the resident’s initial reports. This highlights the need for the landlord to ensure timely communication and prioritise the resident’s concerns.
  16. Between February and March 2024, the resident reported several incidents of verbal abuse and the neighbour deliberately flashing lights into her property. The landlord said it would discuss the incidents with the police but emphasised that evidence was needed to take further action.
  17. Despite the landlord’s repeated emphasis on clear evidence, the resident supplied evidence through her reports and camera footage. Even if the evidence she provided did not demonstrate ASB, the landlord’s approach undermined the resident’s lived experience. It did not offer her the assistance and support necessary to collect and present evidence effectively for her case.
  18. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines various early intervention tools available to investigate and address ASB, which include:
    1. Providing support and signposting to agencies.
    2. Door knocking.
    3. Letters to the local area.
    4. Offering mediation.
  19. The landlord acted appropriately by speaking with the neighbour, who admitted to calling the resident and her husband derogatory names. However, it is unclear whether the landlord addressed the resident’s other reports. Aside from this conversation, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up with other neighbours, as noted on 15 February 2024. If such follow-ups occurred, the landlord has not provided evidence of who was spoken to or whether any neighbours could corroborate the resident’s reports.
  20. Furthermore, the landlord informed another resident, who wanted to provide evidence concerning the neighbour, that it was “not interested in evidence from third parties.” This approach was unprofessional, and contrary to the principles of effective knowledge and information management. This again is evidence of impartiality in the landlord’s investigation. The landlord’s position limited the evidence it collected, which may have impacted the overall understanding of the case.
  21. In its response to the stage 1 complaint, the landlord stated that it understood the situation’s impact after speaking to the resident, although it noted that she had not mentioned this in her complaint. The evidence indicates that before the complaint was raised, and while she was still a tenant, the resident informed the landlord of her and her husband’s vulnerabilities and the effect the ASB was having on them. This was communicated through email and telephone conversations. The resident also provided an impact statement to the landlord. The landlord was aware of the impact, which it ought to have considered prior to the resident raising a complaint. 
  22. The resident expressed her desire to move to escape the “hassle” and shared that she struggled with anxiety, which made it difficult for her to articulate how the situation was affecting them. Throughout her correspondence with the landlord, she explained the considerable distress the situation was causing her.
  23. Despite the significant impact of the ASB on the resident—who contemplated moving due to these issues—the landlord did not offer any support or connect her to agencies that could help. While the ASB case was ongoing, the landlord neglected to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities, even though she clearly stated that the ASB impacted her well-being. Furthermore, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment to evaluate potential risks, assess her vulnerabilities, or determine suitable support. This approach contradicted its ASB policy and overlooked the situation’s effect on a vulnerable resident.
  24. In the stage 1 response, the landlord mentioned it had previously suggested mediation to the resident and her neighbour. However, there is no evidence of this mediation offer outside the landlord’s stage 1 response. This absence of information leaves it unclear when this offer was made and whether the benefits of mediation were adequately communicated to the resident so she could make an informed decision.
  25. The landlord apologised for the distress caused to the resident and offered £400 compensation in its stage 1 response (£100 for the 3 identified failings and £100 for the impact). It acknowledged that it:
    1. Failed to open an ASB case when the resident initially reported the issues.
    2. Failed to complete a risk assessment.
    3. Failed to complete regular action plans.
  26. While the landlord admitted to certain failings, it failed to clarify the steps it had taken, or its plans to improve its service and avoid similar mistakes. Its reply does not reflect our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
  27. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 July 2024 because she was “insulted” by the landlord’s “untruths.” She asked for a formal apology and either a new property or compensation for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
  28. The landlord apologised and appropriately increased its compensation offer at stage 2 to £700. This was in line with its compensation policy for failings that have a severe physical, financial or emotional impact on the resident. 
  29. Where a landlord acknowledges failings, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  30. In summary, although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings, it failed to:
    1. Utilise early intervention tools, such as neighbourhood letters, door-knocking, or discussions with other neighbours to support the resident’s reports and prevent the situation from escalating.
    2. Formally offer the resident mediation and explain how it could have improved her relationship with the neighbour.
    3. Fairly investigate the resident reports and the available evidence from third parties.
    4. Recognise that its communication with the resident was inappropriate, unempathetic, and not in accordance with its ASB policy.
    5. Appropriately consider the resident’s known vulnerabilities and the impact on her and her husband.
    6. Refer her to appropriate support agencies at the earliest opportunity.
    7. Offer tenancy support when it was made aware that the resident wanted to move.
    8. Identify all that went wrong and explain why the failings occurred and the steps it would take to mitigate similar mistakes in the future.
  31. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation between £600 and £1000 if the resident suffers a significant impact. Because of the further failings we have identified, and given the significant impact on the resident, compensation at the higher end of the scale is appropriate to proportionately redress the failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we have awarded an additional £300, raising the total compensation to £1000.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified as part of this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused. This is in addition to the £700 that has already been paid.
    3. The money should be paid directly to the resident unless she confirms otherwise.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to identify what went wrong in this case and confirm what steps it has taken or intends to take to prevent similar failings in the future, particularly where an ASB case involves an employee. A copy of its findings should be sent to us.