Westward Housing Group Limited (202319772)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202319772
Westward Housing Group Limited
13 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom house, since 2008. The resident and her children, who also reside at the property, have vulnerabilities. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
- Between 15 November 2021 and 7 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 47 occasions in relation to incidents of ASB from her neighbour. The reports included:
- Mechanical car repairs, including spray painting.
- Verbal “obscenities”, “harassment” and “intimidating” behaviour towards the resident’s teenage daughter and visitors to her home.
- Parking disputes.
- Food being thrown over the fence into the resident’s garden.
- Damage to the resident’s garden shed.
- At the request of the resident, the landlord investigated its handling of some of the issues listed above on 3 occasions. It provided stage 1 complaint responses in December 2021, March 2022 (although we have not seen evidence of this response), and October 2022.
- Between 7 February 2023 and 26 May 2023, the resident reported ASB to the landlord on 10 occasions. She said that the neighbour was reconstructing the exhaust on their car. She was unhappy about this because the cutting of metal was causing sparks to enter her garden and fumes to enter her home. She said this was affecting the health of a member of her household, who had asthma, and the “extreme” noises were scaring her children. On some occasions, the resident also provided the landlord with photographs and videos of the neighbour undertaking work to their car.
- The resident made a formal complaint on 26 May 2023. She said that she was unhappy with the “lack of help and care” from the landlord regarding the ongoing issue of the neighbour working on their car.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It said:
- It had previously investigated the same issues as a formal complaint in December 2021 and March 2022.
- The photographs and videos that the resident had provided did not support her claims that there were fumes and sparks entering her house and garden.
- It was unable to take any enforcement action against the neighbour, as there was no evidence that they had been working illegally on their vehicle.
- It had spoken to the environmental health service each time the resident had raised a concern about the fumes, but she was required to contact the service directly herself.
- The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day (15 June 2023). She said she disagreed with the findings as the videos showed the neighbour welding their car.
- During a telephone call with the landlord on 17 July 2023, the resident said that she wanted it to consider its handling of all the ASB issues she had experienced (damaged shed, food being thrown into her garden, and “aggressive” behaviour from the neighbour), and not just the car repairs.
- The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 25 July 2023. It said:
- It had responded to her reports of disturbances and written to the neighbour with clear instructions regarding the car repairs.
- It had previously granted permission for the neighbour to conduct “small, day-to-day repairs, without the use of machinery”. It acknowledged that as the issues with noise, sparks and fumes were ongoing, all parties would need to discuss what was “reasonable”, and that it would reinforce the guidance around no use of machinery.
- It had reviewed the police logs she had provided in relation to her damaged shed, food being thrown into her garden, and “aggressive” behaviour from the neighbour. It confirmed that the police were taking no further action in relation to these reports. From the evidence available, it was unable to take any enforcement action against the neighbour.
- It offered the resident mediation with the neighbour.
- It offered the resident £20 in compensation in recognition of its failure to contact her during the stage 1 investigation.
Events after the end of the complaint process
- The landlord contacted the resident on 30 August 2023 to advise that following the closure of the stage 2 complaint, it would contact the neighbour to remind them of their responsibilities. It also reoffered her mediation. It is noted that the resident did not wish to participate in mediation.
- The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord on an intermittent basis. Some issues were in relation to ongoing car repairs, and others in relation to “harassment” from the neighbour.
- The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 December 2023 about the landlord’s response to the neighbour having an “unroadworthy” vehicle on their driveway which caused fumes. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 December 2023. It confirmed that the vehicle was roadworthy, and that the resident would need to report any concerns about fumes to the local authority’s environmental health service.
- In March 2025, the resident told this Service that following a private conversation with her neighbour in 2024, she is no longer experiencing any ASB issues.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not stipulate the time period over which it was investigating its handling of the reports of ASB. This will be assessed within the complaint handling section of this report. However, it is reasonable to assume that its investigation covered the events after October 2022. This is because the landlord said it had previously investigated its handling of the same issues in December 2021 and March 2022, and we have also seen evidence of a stage 1 complaint response in October 2022. We would normally focus our investigation on the single complaint referred to us, and we have also seen no evidence that these complaints exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (through to stage 2). Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between October 2022 and July 2023, when the stage 2 response was issued. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period.
- As mentioned earlier in the report, during the stage 2 complaint investigation, the resident asked the landlord to consider its handling of all the ASB issues she had experienced. The landlord addressed these specific issues within its stage 2 response. However, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of these issues within this report. This is because the relevant matters are historical (occurring in 2021 and 2022), and we have not seen sufficient evidence for us to be satisfied that they have been addressed at each stage of the landlord’s complaints process. Our decision is in accordance with paragraph 42.a and 42.c of the Scheme. We will, however, make an assessment of this within the complaint handling section of this report. The resident may choose to refer her complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the additional ASB matters to this Service for separate investigation.
- The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of the ASB has negatively impacted on her household’s physical and mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
ASB handling
- The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances constituted a nuisance. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if the response was fair in all the circumstances.
- Within the landlord’s ASB policy, it defines ASB as conduct which can cause direct or indirect nuisance, annoyance, harassment, distress, or alarm to any person not in the same household. Additionally, the landlord’s ASB procedure states that if an issue is not classified as ASB, it could be attributed to “different lifestyles” and understandings by individuals, which require neighbours to agree to live alongside each other. It also states that such situations may be a “tenancy management” matter. The ASB procedure does not reference residents working on their cars. However, noise nuisance is categorised as ASB, and DIY activities are considered to be lifestyle differences.
- The landlord also provided us with an extract from a tenancy agreement in relation to vehicle repairs. It is unclear if the extract is from the resident’s or neighbour’s tenancy agreement, but it is reasonable to assume that the general contents will be the same in both agreements. The extract states that tenants should not repair or maintain vehicles at their property, on the road, or in communal car parks. Tenants should not allow repair or maintenance (other than reasonable running repairs) to a vehicle belonging to an occupant of their property. The tenancy agreement also affirms that if, in the landlord’s opinion, any vehicle or its repair or maintenance causes a noise or visual nuisance, the tenant must agree to stop any repair or maintenance.
- Between 7 February 2023 and 16 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions to report her neighbour’s activities. On 16 February 2023, the landlord responded to the resident to advise her that it had reviewed the photographs she had supplied, and it agreed that the work the neighbour was undertaking was “unacceptable”. It stated that it would contact the neighbour to remind them that only minor vehicle repairs can be undertaken. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy and the tenancy agreement.
- However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns. This is a record keeping failure in its handling of the case. We have also seen no evidence that it updated the resident on the actions it had taken, which was inappropriate. In mitigation, it is accepted that the landlord may have been limited in the level of update it could share for reasons of data protection. Nevertheless, it should have provided some form of update and explained why it was unable to share further details, if this was the case.
- On 18 February 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour was still working on their car. She provided a photograph of the neighbour repairing 2 large exhausts in the garden, and their car on the drive, raised off the ground. It was unreasonable that the evidence of these photographs (included within date stamped emails) was provided to us by the resident and not the landlord. This is a further service failing within its record keeping.
- The landlord appropriately responded on 21 February 2023 to advise it had forwarded the information to the relevant team and the resident would receive a response within 10 working days. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took any further steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, or that it responded to her, which was inappropriate. As mentioned previously, it is not within our jurisdiction to establish whether ASB occurred. However, given the content of the photographs that the resident provided, it is evident that these were not “day-to-day” maintenance repairs.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions between 14 May 2023 and 24 May 2023. She said that she could not sit in her garden or use her hot tub, as the neighbour was working on the exhaust in the adjacent garden. She said they were causing sparks and mechanical smells, and she had contacted the police about the matter.
- Following a further evidence request from this Service in February 2025, the landlord informed us that it did not undertake any risk assessments in this case because the nature of the resident’s reports did not meet the threshold of being managed within its own ASB policy. However, within the landlord’s internal notes from 23 May 2023, it said that a staff member had advised it to “raise [the issue] as ASB”. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case at any point within this case. It is accepted that the landlord would not categorise DIY activities (which could include car maintenance) as ASB, or deal with issues in relation to fumes. However, given that the resident had specifically reported noise nuisance caused by the neighbour’s car repairs on numerous occasions and described the impact this was having on her household, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably when it did not open an ASB case.
- The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will refer customers to external agencies as appropriate. We therefore find it reasonable that the landlord advised the resident on 26 May 2023 that she should contact the environmental health service if she was concerned about the fumes. If the meaning of ‘refer’ in the landlord’s policy was ‘signpost’, this could have been made clearer.
- On 26 May 2023 the landlord said that from the videos the resident had provided, it could not identify a breach of tenancy. The landlord’s stage 1 response repeated that there was no evidence to support the resident’s claims. As it had apparently carried out no further investigations, this was to be expected. The key to effective investigation of ASB is gathering and preserving evidence in support of reports of ASB. The fact that the landlord does not appear, on the basis of the available evidence, to have made efforts to gather evidence indicates that, overall, it did not take the matter sufficiently seriously. The landlord’s stage 1 response is further evaluated in the complaint handling section of this report.
- Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that it had written to the neighbour with clear instructions regarding the car repairs. However, we have seen no evidence of this, which is a record keeping failure in its handling of the matter. The Scheme allows landlords to provide such information to us.
- It was positive that the landlord offered the resident mediation within its stage 2 response. However, as the issue had been ongoing for several years, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer this to the resident earlier. Mediation is typically more likely to be effective in the early stages of a dispute. Nevertheless, it is understood that the resident did not wish to participate in mediation.
- Following the closure of the stage 2 complaint, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour about their responsibilities regarding car repairs. This is a further record keeping failure in its handling of the case, and, if no contact was made, constituted a missed opportunity to attempt to resolve the reported issues.
- We find that, based upon the evidence the resident supplied the landlord (videos, photographs and explanations on how this was impacting her), and the frequency in which she was reporting the issues, the landlord failed to carry out a proportionate investigation into her concerns. To gather the evidence required to either support or disprove the resident’s allegations, the landlord should have considered asking her to complete diary sheets, setting out the times and duration of repairs. It could have asked its housing officers to make regular visits to the street to see if car repairs were taking place. It could have interviewed the resident to ascertain what impact the ASB had upon her, and surveyed other neighbours to see if they could corroborate her claims.
- The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receiving a report of ASB, it will listen and give advice as to what a resident can do and what they can expect from it. Furthermore, the ASB procedure states that the landlord’s approach should be to seek to understand the nature of the issue a resident is reporting, and its response should be proportionate to the impact of the incident. We acknowledge the landlord’s concerns that the resident had made similar reports of ASB over several years. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord acted inappropriately, as it should consider every report of ASB on its merits.
- As mentioned previously, the landlord informed us that it had no records of vulnerabilities for the resident’s household. Between February 2023 and August 2023, the resident informed the landlord on 6 occasions that she and her daughter had asthma. She also said that her daughter had a metal allergy (which was exacerbated by the neighbour’s mechanical works). The landlord should have captured this information, and then made an assessment on how the issue had impacted the household. If it required the resident’s agreement to record information about her vulnerabilities centrally, it should have explored this with her.
- Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because:
- The landlord failed to open an ASB case and investigate the resident’s concerns appropriately.
- The landlord’s record keeping in its handling of the ASB was poor.
- The landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for its failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due.
- An order of compensation has been made in recognition of the failures identified in this report. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award between £50 and £100 in discretionary compensation for a serious failure with high impact. However, in our opinion this is significantly low. Therefore, our order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Complaint handling
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are also to be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days. If an extension is required at either stage of the complaints process, the landlord will notify the resident of the expected timescale, which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
- The resident made a complaint on 26 May 2023. Taking into account the bank holiday, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days (on 5 June 2023). Although the acknowledgement was within the target timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it was slightly outside of the target timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. While this is not considered an excessive delay and it is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the importance of effective communication and management of expectations during the complaints process is highlighted.
- The landlord’s complaint policy states that at stage 1 of its complaints process, it will call the complainant to find out more about the complaint and discuss a resolution. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint and the outcomes sought. This was inappropriate, as the Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy and the Code.
- Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it had received the resident’s complaint on 5 June 2023. This was incorrect, as she had made the complaint on 26 May 2023. Although this error is again likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure that it checks its records and correspondence for accuracy before it issues a formal complaint response.
- The landlord stated that it had issued formal complaint responses in December 2021 and March 2022 in relation to its handling of the same issues. As mentioned previously, we have also seen evidence that the landlord issued a stage 1 response in October 2022. Given that the landlord had previously investigated its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide her with some clarity on the time period that it was investigating within this specific complaint.
- Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events for the substantive issue within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. As the landlord did not do so within this case, we find that it overlooked some important facts. This includes that it agreed with the resident in February 2023 that the car repairs were “unacceptable” and that it was going to speak with the neighbour. Had it included this evidence within its investigation, it may have determined a different outcome on the complaint.
- We find that the landlord’s stage 1 response was primarily an evaluation of the reported ASB, rather than an assessment of its own handling of the case. It would have been appropriate for it to explain how it had responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations. We find that the landlord’s failure to be transparent within its response was inappropriate and a failing within its complaint handling.
- The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 June 2023, and the landlord acknowledged her request within 4 working days (21 June 2023). This was slightly outside of the target timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. As above, this is not considered an excessive delay, though more effective communication may have improved the resident’s experience.
- The resident reported further ASB on 26 June 2023 and 16 July 2023. The evidence shows that the resident’s emails were forwarded to the stage 2 complaint responder. However, there is no evidence that the relevant team responsible for dealing with ASB were made aware of the further reports. This was inappropriate, as the relevant version of the Code applicable at the time of the complaint stated that during a complaint investigation, outstanding actions should still be tracked and dealt with promptly.
- The landlord appropriately contacted the resident via telephone on 17 July 2023 to discuss her stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of the call notes, which is a record keeping failure in its handling of the complaint as the Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. However, it did provide a summary of the call within its stage 2 response. During the telephone call, the resident told the landlord that she had asked for her complaint to include a review of the handling all her reports of ASB against the neighbour, and not just those relating to the neighbour’s mechanical works.
- The landlord’s complaint policy states that if a complainant raises an additional complaint during the investigation, and addressing it would delay the response significantly, a new complaint should be logged. Additionally, the applicable Code states that if a resident raises additional complaints after the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. On 25 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. This was 28 days from the date the resident had escalated her complaint. We find that the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its complaints policy when it agreed an extension with the resident. However, as these issues had not yet been through stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, we find that it would have been more appropriate for it to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate the issues.
- Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that it understood why the other ASB issues were not investigated in the stage 1 complaint. It told the resident that this was because her email on 5 June 2023 only mentioned car repairs. This was a fair response from the landlord. It was appropriate that the landlord then apologised to the resident for failing to contact her to discuss the complaint before it issued its stage 1 response. This shows that it was learning from its complaints. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award discretionary compensation of between £5 and £20 for low–level impact on the customer. We therefore find that for this failure alone, the landlord’s offer of £20 was reasonable.
- However, overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered for complaint handling was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An additional order of compensation has been made, which is proportionate to the multiple failings identified. It has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation guidance (maximum of £20 per failing), as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders and recommendations
- The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
- Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
- Pay the resident £540 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
- £400 for its handling of her reports of ASB.
- £140 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £20 previously offered by the landlord a stage 2, plus an additional £120 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
- It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.
- It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to obtain accurate and up-to-date details of her household’s vulnerabilities, including any health conditions she wishes to disclose and any associated needs/impacts, and ensures its records are updated accordingly.