Together Housing Association Limited (202438425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438425

Together Housing Association Limited

31 July 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

Complaint A

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
   2. The resident’s request for a meeting.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Complaint B

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s communication with the resident following her neighbour’s report of ASB.

Background

4. The resident has been a sole assured tenant of the landlord since 2022. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is aware the resident has restricted mobility and a heart condition.
5. The landlord visited the resident on 15 August 2024. It asked whether she had received its letter concerning an allegation that she was verbally abusive to a neighbour. It queried if the police had spoken to her regarding a hate crime allegation. The resident denied this and raised counter allegations. The following day she contacted the landlord for more information. She also requested a meeting with a manager, and clearly stated she wished to raise a formal complaint (complaint A).
6. The resident re-raised her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports on 2 October 2024. This concerned what she described as ongoing harassment by the neighbour and his family. Also, it had not passed on information about the alleged hate crime after the landlord’s visit, citing data protection. She had asked the landlord for a visit from a manager, but she had yet to have one and had not been updated about the situation.
7. After the landlord advised the resident, it needed longer to investigate, it sent its stage 1 response on 30 October 2024. It acknowledged it did not have all the information on 15 August 2024. It had approached the neighbour, who was happy for it to disclose information concerning the allegation. Therefore, the landlord would contact her to discuss this. It recognised it had not kept the resident informed. The landlord apologised for the service delivery failing concerning the resident’s request for a meeting with a manager. It said it had tried to contact the resident on 5, 26, and 30 September 2024 to arrange a meeting. If she still desired one, it asked her to contact to arrange.
8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 November 2024. She said she was unhappy as there was no resolution and discrepancies in the landlord’s response. The landlord had not recognised its lack of response to her complaint dated 16 August 2024. She queried why the landlord visited her without all the information. She said she did not feel safe and did not know what the neighbour might accuse her of next and the landlord should hold him accountable for his actions.
9. The landlord responded on 18 December 2024, after visiting the resident on the 13 December. It upheld parts of the complaint. The landlord:
   1. Apologised for its failings in arranging the managers meeting and the lack of response to the complaint made on 16 August 2024. It awarded the resident £300 for these.
   2. Said it handled the resident’s ASB case in line with its policy.
   3. Recognised it should have had more clarity and spoken to the police before the 15 August 2024 visit, but that it acted with the best of intentions.
   4. Committed to completing necessary due diligence before bringing any other complaint to the resident.
   5. Offered the resident a single point of contact (SPOC).
   6. Explained the legal process needed to end the neighbour’s tenancy. It did not have evidence to support taking this action, despite this being the resident’s wishes.
   7. Offered support in helping the resident to move, if this was something she wished to do.
10. The resident raised complaint B on 18 March 2025. Her complaint was that the landlord had not completed the appropriate due diligence before contacting her on 10 February 2025 as it promised it would. Also, that it telephoned despite her asking for email contact only. In both its stage 1 and final response letter the landlord recognised it had not completed the due diligence and contacted the resident over the phone when it should have emailed. It apologised for this and put measures in place so this would not happen again. The landlord also apologised it had told the resident she would receive a response from the local officer by 3 March 2025, but it did this on 4 March. It awarded the resident £200. It offered tenancy support and gave Citizens Advice contact information. It asked whether there were any reasonable adjustments it should make for the resident and reiterated the mediation offer.
11. The resident informed us the problems with the neighbour are continuing. She wants the landlord to move her neighbour. She says she would like to be able to walk to her car without verbal abuse and for the landlord to enforce the neighbour’s tenancy agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaints. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint prior to our involvement. As such we cannot consider issues raised after the formal complaint stages. This includes the resident’s request to move. The resident can raise any issues directly with the landlord as a formal complaint if she wishes and raise a new case with us also.
13. We have also seen the landlord’s historical records of ASB reports. While noting the historical issues, this investigation will only look back approximately 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in August 2024. This is because as issues become historical, evidence becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, and this effects the Service’s ability to undertake an evidence-based investigation. We have therefore made the decision to focus on the events from August 2023.
14. The resident told us that as a resolution, she would like the landlord to move the neighbour. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that we will not order a remedy that would put things right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals, or that would mean someone received preferential treatment over others equally waiting for a move. This could alter other applicants standing on the list who may have greater priority for a move. As such, we have not ordered the landlord to do this. In addition, the neighbour has a legal contract to rent the property, which we are unable to end or alter.

Complaint A

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

15. We recognise the resident reported she had been experiencing problems with her neighbour in January 2023. The landlord, with the consent of the resident closed the case in April 2023. We have included this for context, however this is out of this investigation’s timeframe.
16. We have seen the resident reported 3 ASB issues to the landlord between the closure of the above case and October 2024 when her complaint was picked up. The landlord on each occasion asked the resident to complete diary sheets, offered to open an ASB case, and offered mediation. We have also seen that the landlord liaised with the police and visited the neighbour to discuss the resident’s complaint. These were appropriate steps and reasonable offers for the landlord to make. They were in line with its ASB and hate crime policy.
17. The resident refused mediation as she said she had not done anything wrong. She refused to complete diary sheets as the landlord only ever visited the neighbour, who then denied the resident’s allegations. This was the resident’s prerogative. It was necessary for the landlord to visit and discuss the allegations made against the neighbour, who may or may not agree with what had been reported about him. The landlord needed to have the opportunity to have evidence of, investigate, and resolve reported ASB issues. The continuing reports of ASB would have been frustrating for both parties. The resident experienced the problems but without evidence, the landlord was limited in what it could do.
18. The resident bought a dash cam for her car and installed CCTV at the front and rear of her property. This was to resolve issues of her car being damaged, neighbours walking behind her bungalow at night, and her assertion that dog faeces were thrown into her front garden. We acknowledge these were awful experiences for the resident. The resident took appropriate, positive steps to resolve these awful incidents. The cameras would also provide the resident with video evidence should she experience further issues or if the neighbour accused her of something. We note the resident declined to share her CCTV footage as she reported the landlord had previously refused to watch it.
19. While we recognise the resident considers the landlord should have moved the neighbour or acted against his tenancy. Taking legal action against a tenant is not something we would expect a landlord to do without sufficient evidence. To do this a landlord must be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This is in the interests of all parties including the landlord, the resident, and the neighbour accused of ASB, who it is obligated to treat as fairly as the resident. We have not seen that the resident provided sufficient evidence to the landlord for it to be able to do this.
20. The evidence we have seen indicated the landlord acted in line with its ASB and hate crime policy and made reasonable attempts, where appropriate, to respond to the resident’s reports. Therefore, we find it handled her ASB case appropriately.
21. The landlord received a complaint from the neighbour that the resident had been verbally abusive. We have seen evidence the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2024 to advise of this. The resident said she did not receive the letter. The landlord then visited the resident on 15 August 2024 without an appointment and asked the resident if the police had been in touch regarding a hate crime.
22. The resident complained about the way the landlord approached her concerning the allegation. We have seen a copy of the landlord’s letter which shows it wrote the wrong address on it. Noting this, it is understandable that the resident did not receive it. While this was likely to be human error, it left the resident unprepared when the landlord unexpectedly visited.
23. When dealing with a sensitive issue as this, it may have been better for the landlord to make an appointment with the resident. This would have highlighted she had not received the letter and allowed her to prepare for the meeting.
24. The resident also complained that the landlord did not disclose the details about the neighbour’s allegation after its visit. The resident asked for this on 16 August 2024. We have seen she repeatedly contacted the landlord to ask for this information. The landlord, in its stage 1 response which it sent over 2 months later, said it could not disclose this without the neighbour’s permission as it was not its information to pass on. It recognised in its final response, however, that it should have shared this. It said it visited the resident with the best of intentions and was taking a proactive approach. It was not reasonable to visit the resident without being prepared to discuss the details of the complaint either during or after the visit. The resident explained that she did not feel confident that the landlord was taking the matter seriously and felt frustrated it did not share information when she asked, causing a loss in confidence.
25. In our opinion, the landlord’s actions concerning the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate. It took the resident’s reports seriously and made reasonable efforts to gather evidence. Without the resident’s engagement in providing evidence, the landlord was unable to take further action. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s approach to raising the counter-allegations with the resident was problematic.
26. As noted, the landlord:
    1. Sent the warning letter to the wrong address;
    2. Visited the resident without warning and without having all the necessary information; and
    3. Was not clear on the level of detail it could disclose about the allegations made against the resident.
27. Therefore, we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 to recognise this. This is at the top of the range for service failure as noted in our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a meeting

28. In the resident’s complaint, she said she had asked for a meeting with a manager on 16 August 2024, but the landlord had not arranged one. In its stage 1 response the landlord noted it had tried to contact the resident to arrange the meeting on 5, 26, and 30 September 2024. It asked the resident to contact a specific staff member if a meeting was still desired. It seems reasonable to assume a meeting was still desired as the resident raised this after the landlord’s efforts to arrange one. It would have been a more proactive response to offer a date for a meeting and asked the resident to contact if that was not suitable.
29. The resident waited for 4 months for the managers visit, which took place on 13 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its final response letter. The landlord was clear about its failing and said in its final response “I cannot provide a reason that justifies why no appointment was made with you.” It offered the resident £150 for this failing.
30. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised the resident should not have waited so long and that this would have significantly added to her existing frustrations. We have considered the level of compensation the landlord awarded the resident in recognition of this, and have concluded that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. This was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration of this nature.

The landlord’s complaint handling

31. The landlord did not progress the resident’s complaint made in August 2024. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its final response letter. It offered the resident £150 for this failing. Not responding to a complaint represented poor complaint handling and was likely to have further frustrated the resident.
32. As above, we have considered the level of compensation the landlord awarded the resident in recognition of this, and have concluded that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. This is because the offer of compensation was again proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration of this nature.

Complaint B

The landlord’s communication with the resident following her neighbour’s report of ASB

33. The landlord’s actions are viewed in the context of its promises in complaint A’s final response letter.
34. The resident had been waiting for a response from the local officer to discuss the ASB report, the landlord agreed they would contact the resident on 3 March 2025. This did not happen until the following day. In the resident’s complaint dated 18 March 2025 she raised this, and also that she had been stressed by the landlord’s actions and it needed to do something to remedy the situation. She also raised that the landlord had referred to her property as a flat, not as a bungalow.
35. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 March 2025. It was apologetic and said:
    1. It did not do the due diligence checks prior to calling the resident. This was due to a new local officer. It put notes on the system to stop this happening again and a senior manager had oversight of the resident’s case. It offered £50 for this failing.
    2. It contacted the resident about the ASB report a day later than it agreed to. It also contacted the resident by telephone after making a commitment to use her preferred communication method of email. It would feedback about these failings, and it offered the resident £50.
    3. It did not find it failed when it referred to her property as a flat, not as a bungalow. It explained this was human error and it had provided feedback to the staff member concerning this.
36. In the resident’s escalation request she asked what the landlord’s apologies, and the compensation achieved, it had not understood the impact to her. She said the landlord had not done anything to stop the issues recurring and had not acted against the neighbour. Where there has been a service failing, the usual response would be to attempt to put things right. This may be to offer an apology and/or compensation. While we understand the resident’s frustration, the landlord needs to have evidence to be able to take enforcement against a neighbour. We have not seen the landlord has the evidence to be able to do this.
37. The resident said she had not heard anything about the landlord’s suggestion of a SPOC. We note in complaint A’s final response letter the landlord was looking at options to provide the resident with a SPOC and wanted to visit the resident in early 2025. In response to this offer, the resident said it was too little too late. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to pursue this at that stage. We are pleased to see that it has picked this up again. While we recognise the resident did not want this, we believe it may rebuild trust in the relationship. As such as part of this report we will recommend that the landlord reoffer this for the resident to reconsider.
38. The landlord sent its final response on 16 May 2025. It agreed with the failings identified in its stage 1 response. It said it would improve its malicious and vexatious complaints guidance, reoffered mediation, and offered support services. It also increased its compensation to £200.
39. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to address its errors. It acted in line with our dispute resolution principles. It fairly dealt with the resident through its complaint processes, informally responded to the resident’s concerns, and offered to raise a complaint for her. It also made efforts to discuss its response with the resident by sending over its draft response. It tried to put things right with its apology and compensation offer. It clearly identified its mistakes and put in measures to learn from them.
40. We can understand the resident’s reticence to accept that the landlord has learned from its failings after complaint A’s final response letter. We hope by accepting the SPOC the resident and landlord can build back confidence in the relationship.
41. The landlord’s compensation offer of £200 is in line with our remedies guide for maladministration. This aligns with what we would have found. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication with the resident following her neighbour’s report of ASB.

Determination

Complaint A

42. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
43. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the following complaints satisfactorily:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a meeting.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Complaint B

44. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident following her neighbour’s report of ASB, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £100 for the landlord’s service failure in the handling of the ASB reports.
46. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

47. The Ombudsman would emphasise that we have made the reasonable redress finding on the provision the landlord has either paid or offers again to pay the resident the combined compensation of £500 for its failings in both complaints. If the landlord does not do this, it would undermine the reasonable redress finding and we may revisit this. We would like to see evidence of the landlord making the payment or offering it to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
48. The landlord is to contact the resident again concerning the offer of a SPOC and for the resident to reconsider this.