From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Midland Heart Limited (202319576)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319576

Midland Heart Limited

18 June 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. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord for a one-bedroom flat.
  2. From January 2021, the resident made multiple reports about her neighbour’s behaviour, including a racist incident in March. In May, the police issued the neighbour with a community protection notice relating to ASB. Part of this prohibited them from engaging with the resident or using racist language.
  3. The court awarded the landlord an injunction against the neighbour on 9 June 2021. The landlord later raised a possession order. This went to court in April 2022. The neighbour decided to end their tenancy and left the property at the end of April 2022.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 September 2023. She said her former tenancy support officer (TSO) previously had an inappropriate relationship with the neighbour. She said the new TSO had not acted on her ASB reports and closed her case. She believed the landlord had breached her privacy by providing her details to the neighbour when it took her to court. The resident said her mental health was affected, and she felt suicidal.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2023. It said it investigated the former TSO and took “appropriate action.” It said the new TSO contacted the resident regularly and took action based on evidence. It said it worked with the police in raising the injunction and possession order, but the neighbour decided to end her tenancy in April 2022. It confirmed it had created an action plan regarding the resident’s further ASB reports in 2023 and referred her for mental health support through her GP.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 September 2023 adding concerns about rent arrears. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 December. It explained why it had not breached the resident’s data and clarified why it closed her 2021/2022 ASB case. It found its stage 1 response was “fair and correct”. However, it offered £100 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. It said the resident’s rent arrears began after it obtained the injunction, and it could see no reason why the resident was unable to live at the property.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman she wanted further compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. She also wanted the landlord to remove her rent arrears and to organise a managed move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord had disclosed information to the neighbour about her when it took her to court. The landlord believed the resident was talking about a data breach by its solicitor and responded accordingly.
  2. The resident later told the Ombudsman her concerns were about the landlord sharing her information in the injunction application. However, this was not clear in her complaint. In the injunction, the court named the resident as a person the neighbour could not engage with. The resident can raise this with the landlord, clarifying with which event she was concerned. She can also raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. In her 2023 complaint and escalation, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of the TSO who the landlord formerly attached to her case. She said they had acted “inappropriately” with her neighbour and she provided evidence of this to the landlord. She asked it to disclose what action it had taken. She wanted an assurance it had taken the matter seriously.
  2. The landlord described the events as “historic,” as they took place in October 2021. It assured the resident it had completed a thorough investigation. It said it found no evidence of an unprofessional relationship. The evidence reflects completion of this investigation.
  3. The landlord found the TSO had crossed its professional boundaries policy and code of conduct and it took relevant disciplinary action. It managed her expectations by explaining it was unable to disclose further details of this due to data protection. This was all in accordance with its complaints policy regarding internal complaints. The policy states it will advise once the matter is concluded but will not disclose the outcome due to confidentiality rights of staff.
  4. The landlord explained it had allocated a new TSO in October 2021 to the ASB case as a result, which was an appropriate step. It assured the resident that the change did not delay its handling of her ASB reports.
  5. The resident complained that the new TSO was not contacting her. The landlord explained its evidence showed it had maintained or attempted contact regularly. Its records show that its TSO had checked on the resident and kept her informed on action it was taking, including the injunction and possession order. This was in accordance with its ASB policy, where it had treated the matter seriously under the highest priority in this policy. This included the injunction and possession order.
  6. The resident told the landlord she believed it only took action against the neighbour because they assaulted the police. She also complained that it closed the ASB case while she was in hospital in May 2022.
  7. In response, the landlord explained the grounds on which it obtained the injunction in June 2021 and extended it in November. The evidence shows the landlord created an ASB action plan, obtained or arranged a community protection order, the injunction, and the possession order in line with its ASB policy. It shows these actions were based on a long period of evidence gathered from the resident and her neighbours, of which the police assault was only one part.
  8. The landlord explained it closed the ASB case in July 2022, 2 months after the resident was in hospital. The evidence shows that at the time it had called her to explain its decision, followed by an email confirmation. It also explained it would reopen the case if the resident made further reports. Given there had been no further ASB reports since February, and the neighbour had left the property, the landlord’s actions were appropriate to the situation and in line with its ASB policy.
  9. The resident said she was not inhabiting her property for some time and was paying money to friends to stay at their properties. She said she was in a “bad place financially,” which led to rent arrears. She said the landlord did not acknowledge her fear of returning to the property as the reason for the arrears.
  10. The landlord said the resident had not made it aware that she was staying away from the property. This was appropriate as the tenancy agreement states the resident must inform the landlord when she is away from the property for more than 14 days.
  11. The landlord stated that rent arrears began in January 2022, continuing to April 2023 when it obtained direct rent payments from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It said the arrears began(8 months) after the court granted the injunction against the neighbour and continued when the neighbour left her tenancy in May 2022. It said it could see “no reason” why the resident could not reside at the property. The resident’s tenancy makes clear her responsibility for the rent, and the evidence supports the landlord’s explanation.
  12. The landlord offered support regarding the rent arrears. It encouraged the resident to work with its rent officer to ensure a payment plan was in place to clear the arrears. It also offered to refer her for money advice if she was experiencing financial difficulties. The landlord has not provided its rent arrears policy on which to assess its actions. Nonetheless, these were pragmatic and customer focused options, and it was reasonable for the landlord to offer them.
  13. The resident stated the police advised her she should be moved from her property as they did not feel it was safe for her to remain there. She said the landlord’s response was to suggest a mutual exchange, which she did not feel was appropriate given her health.
  14. The landlord explained that it could only move residents when the police state a resident’s life may be in danger if they remained in the property. It is unclear what policy this was based on. However, it said it had no evidence that the police had provided any supporting information at any point. It also reasonably stated it was taking action to protect the resident from the neighbour, so moving homes should not be necessary.
  15. Although the landlord had previously provided information about moving, it may have been helpful to also include it in its complaint response. This would have ensured the resident was clear on all available options.
  16. The resident believed the landlord was not taking her report of ASB incidents about other perpetrators in August 2023 seriously. This included children kicking balls at her car and an incident involving their parents. She believed these were linked to her former neighbour.
  17. The landlord said it was waiting for further video evidence from the resident so it could proceed. This was evident in the action plan it created at the time. This process was in line with its ASB policy. The resident said she would not provide further evidence until the landlord’s solicitor apologised for a data breach. The landlord had explained that this data breach was related to another resident in its complaint response. It also took action to write to all parents on the estate about their children’s behaviour. These actions were in line with its ASB policy and the action plan it had created for the resident’s reports.
  18. The resident complained that the landlord had not supported her, especially regarding her health and wellbeing. The records show the landlord’s concerns for the resident’s wellbeing was an ongoing element of its actions and the reasons for them. This included ensuring support from her GP, obtaining contact details for her next of kin, a risk assessment at the time the resident was in hospital, and referrals to the NHS. It was also a significant factor in the landlord obtaining the injunction and subsequent possession order.
  19. In summary, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. It acted responsibly in changing the TSO when the resident raised concerns about them. It then took robust action against the neighbour, leading to them leaving their property. This caused no further reports of ASB from the resident, so it appropriately closed the case. It supported the resident through this time with her mental health and made referrals for further support where necessary. The landlord managed the residents’ expectations about rent arrears and her move options. Its overall handling of the resident’s ASB reports, and her circumstances, was reasonable.

Determination

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