From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Vivid Housing Limited (202322185)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322185

Vivid Housing Limited

14 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow. He has lived at the property since 2003. He is elderly and disabled; the landlord was aware of his vulnerabilities. The resident was represented by his daughter and a solicitor. We have referred to them as the resident throughout.
  2. In April 2023 the resident reported an allegation of verbal abuse from his neighbour to his daughter following a dispute over parking. The resident told the landlord that he had video evidence of this and other related incidents.
  3. The landlord discussed the allegations with the resident in May 2023. It met with the resident on 25 May 2023, but was unable to review the CCTV footage. It agreed an action plan with the resident. It met with the resident on 5 June 2023. He provided 5 CCTV recordings made between 26 April and 6 May 2023. The landlord reviewed the recordings and determined that there was no evidence of actionable ASB provided.
  4. The resident complained on 2 June 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. He felt the recordings he made on his CCTV were evidence of ASB. He wanted the landlord to pay compensation for his lack of peaceful enjoyment and the costs he incurred to pay for his dropped kerb.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 June 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It summarised its investigation into the reports of ASB. It referred the resident to the information commissioner’s office to ensure he was using his CCTV appropriately. It said that it would not be involved in parking disputes and had no jurisdiction over the use of the public highway. It offered to provide mediation for the resident/his daughter and the alleged perpetrators. It also offered assistance for the resident to move away from the property, closer to his family members.
  6. The landlord closed its ASB investigation on 4 July 2023.
  7. The resident sought to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 14 July 2023. He disputed the landlord’s summary of the ASB incidents. He believed the landlord should make reasonable adjustments in its handling of his reports of ASB. He felt the landlord should take action to reduce the impact the parking issues had on him.
  8. The landlord acknowledged his request to escalate the complaint on 18 July 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 14 August 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It explained how it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and was unable to identify any necessary reasonable adjustments. It approved his request for a move nearer to his family. It reiterated its offer of mediation.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy said that it did not consider reports of parking issues as ASB. It will assess each case and contact the people involved. Where appropriate, it will often use early interventions to resolve incidents of ASB. It will also consider referring residents to an independent assessment or mediation service.

Reports of ASB

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, it is to assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it reasonably followed its policy and good practice, considering all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address, and seek to resolve, reported ASB. It should have adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB, the landlord needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its policies and procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it responded promptly to the resident’s report on 28 April 2023. It contacted the resident on 3 May 2023, which was less than 5 working days after the initial report. It recognised that the reports related to wider issues than a parking dispute and took the resident’s reports seriously. It established a contact and action plan that it agreed with the resident. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
  4. The landlord followed good practice. It gathered evidence from the resident and the police in May 2023. It maintained weekly contact, as agreed in its contact plan, throughout May and June 2023. Its records show that it reviewed its case management in May and June 2023.
  5. Once the resident supplied CCTV evidence of alleged ASB on 5 June 2023, the landlord reviewed the recordings the same day. It assessed the evidence and determined that the recordings did not demonstrate any actionable ASB by the alleged perpetrators. It communicated its decision clearly to the resident and made reasonable offers to resolve the neighbour dispute through mediation, which he refused. Its records show that it sought to manage the resident’s expectations. It also discussed the allegations with the alleged perpetrator (with the resident’s consent) once it had reviewed the evidence on 5 June 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
  6. The landlord showed that it appropriately assessed its handling of the reports of ASB in its stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. It reflected on the resident’s vulnerabilities and showed that it considered possible reasonable adjustments. Its offer to support the resident to move to another property showed it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the situation had on him. It was reasonable to direct the resident to the local authority to address inappropriate/illegal parking as the appropriate enforcement agency.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate. The resident was in a difficult and often distressing situation. He was understandably upset by some of the parking issues outside his home. However, the landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously and acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It was clear with the resident about the thresholds to act on reports of ASB. Wider circumstantial evidence suggested that there was a breakdown of relations between the resident and his neighbour. It appropriately sought solutions involving relevant agencies to minimise the situation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.