Origin Housing Limited (202223948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223948

Origin Housing Limited

26 February 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and request for compensation.
2. complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat, which he bought in 2021 under the shared ownership scheme. He owns a 40% share of the property while the landlord, who is the freeholder, owns the remaining share.
The resident told this Service that he first reported children playing ball games outside his property and causing a nuisance in May 2022. Between 18 to 21 August 2022 the resident completed a diary sheet citing several incidents of children kicking footballs against his kitchen window and walls. He continued to report similar incidents and, on 3 November 2022 he contacted the landlord to say he “just had yet another incident of a ball hitting” his window. He said it was the same “teenager” who he had previously reported kicking a football at his walls and windows. He said that after doing so, the individual would then “laugh”. On 4 November 2022, the landlord replied and stated it would speak to the neighbourhood manager on 7 November 2022 to agree an action plan. It said it would write to him with a further update.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2022 to chase it for its update. He said since he had previously contacted it, he had “to confront” the teenage neighbour and his 2 friends about kicking a football at his living room window and running away. The landlord responded on the same day and said that it would send letters to the ”general needs tenants advising of the restrictions in place” regarding playing ball games. It asked him to confirm where the child in question lived. It said this would help it to “enforce breach of tenancy terms with offending households”.
The resident reported further similar ASB incidents on 25 November 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on 30 November 2022. On 20 December 2022, the resident wrote to it to say that it had still not provided an update regarding the issues he was having with his neighbours. He stated that he wanted the contact details of a manager so he could raise “a formal complaint for being lied to and neglected”. It is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took following this.
On 4 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord again. He stated that:
1. he was writing “in desperation due to the sheer lack of help, support, empathy and action from” the landlord.
2. since he had lived in the property, he had dealt with over 80 “separate incidents involving kids and teenagers who live on the estate”. These ranged from “throwing things” at his walls and windows, “leaning on them” and “looking through” his windows.
3. it had told him that it would send letters to residents “but this never happened”.
4. it also told him it would be opening an ASB case based on the information he had supplied.
5. this had affected his mental health and he had experienced “serious anxiety issues” where his evenings and weekends had been “ruined”.
6. his “floor to ceiling windows” had no shrubs or “privacy buffer like every other building on the estate”.
7. people stood outside his kitchen, by a “poorly situated” bin, and smoked. He had been told in October 2022 that it was a fire hazard and that the bin would be removed but this had still not been done.
8. the situation had led him to sell his property, as a result of which he paid the landlord £650 to put it on the market.
9. he had been “failed in every way” by the landlord and the situation had got him to “breaking point”.
On 17 May 2023, the resident sent the landlord several reference numbers of reports he had made to the police. On 26 May 2023, the landlord sent him its stage 1 response. It stated that it:
1. was sorry to hear about his experiences over the previous 18 months and the frustration and distress the situation had caused him.
2. had spoken to him over the previous 4 weeks and apologised that its handling of his ASB case had been “inadequate” and that progress had “been very slow”.
3. had removed the bin and hoped this would “help to reduce people loitering” outside his window.
4. had requested a quote for some mature planting for the area outside his property so people would not use it as a short cut.
5. had identified on CCTV the people who were playing ball games outside his property. Its neighbourhood manager had made home visits to raise the matter with those concerned. It had also issued acceptable behaviour contracts and it was “hopeful” he would “see a great improvement”.
6. had obtained approval to remove the paving outside his window and replace it with a flower bed. The intention would be to deter people walking close to his window and stop children kicking balls against this wall.
7. was sorry he had to make a complaint before it took appropriate action and for its failure to deal effectively with his ASB reports.
8. upheld his complaint and offered him £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
The resident responded on 31 May 2023 to say that its offer was “not acceptable”. He stated that:
1. the “harassment” and “victimisation” had affected him mentally and he did not feel comfortable in his home.
2. he had logged over 100 incidents and “not once did anyone think to check times and dates using CCTV”.
3. he had been regularly targeted and the landlord had failed to support him or deal with the situation.
4. he was left with no option but to sell his flat but the landlord did nothing to support him. However, it was happy to take £650 to take photos of his property and value it.
5. he wanted it to return the £650 that he had “lost”, and “damages” for his “horrific experience”.
The landlord responded on 7 June 2023 to say that its head of customer experience would review the compensation it had offered. On 23 June 2023, it wrote back to him with an increased offer of £250. The resident wrote again on 26 June 2023 to tell the landlord its offer was “not sufficient”. He said it had been “over 23 months of him begging” for the landlord to support him where he had been “a victim of harassment, bullying and victimisation”. He had had to ask youths to stop playing football against his walls and windows. He added that there was a sign on his wall saying “no ball games”, but despite this happening and his reports, no action was taken. The landlord agreed on 7 July 2023 to carry out a further review of its compensation offer and wrote to the resident on 10 July 2023 to say that:
1. it had noted the costs involved in marketing his property.
2. it could not provide a full refund as “particulars” had already been done for his property, together with a valuation.
3. it appreciated that he requested to sell his property because of the impacts of the ASB on him at the time.
4. it was happy for this reason to increase his compensation to £325, which was 50% of the costs he was trying to reclaim.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 31 October 2023 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He stated that the £325 it had offered him was what he had paid it to put his flat on the market. This was because it had not supported him with the ASB. He added that the issue was about youths playing football outside his property, which was still going on because the landlord had taken no action.
On 17 February 2025, the resident told this Service that he had not experienced ASB involving children playing ball games since October 2024. However, he said that the behaviour tended to occur during the warmer months. He added that the landlord had asked the other residents on the estate to vote on a proposal to redevelop the area. This would help discourage people congregating and playing ball games. However, as only 3 households were in favour of the plan, the landlord could not move forward with it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that the ASB he experienced has had a negative impact on his mental health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The resident has raised new issues, with this Service. This was relating to “defensive planting” outside his property and the landlord seeking consensus from the other residents to redevelop the outside communal area. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because, in fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that, when a resident reports ASB, it will meet both the complainant and alleged perpetrator where possible. If appropriate, it will also talk to neighbours and other relevant local agencies. It will review and listen to all information, recordings and evidence provided to it in respect of the ASB report.
The same policy states that delivering an action plan focuses on 2 aspects of managing ASB. These are:
1. early intervention aimed at bringing the ASB to an end with minimal delay and expense. It is also vital that it is able to manage the resident’s expectations.
2. legal remedies, which are pursued if the early intervention does not modify the behaviour.
In managing ASB, the policy states that the landlord can take a number informal actions. These include:
1. verbal and written warnings.
2. making referrals for support.
3. using mediation services at an early stage and where appropriate.
4. using acceptable behaviour agreements and parenting agreements when appropriate.
5. using good neighbour agreements.
6. multi-agency partnership working.
When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of this Service to reach a decision on whether the behaviour has occurred as reported. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. Our assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The Ombudsman has outlined its expectations for landlords dealing with ASB. We state that an ASB policy should contain steps for creating the fundamentals of an effective ASB response, including action plans, clear communication, risk assessments, and working with third party agencies. Furthermore, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance states that “the relevant bodies should use their risk assessment procedures as part of the decision on whether the threshold is met” It goes on to say that, “even where the threshold is not met, local agencies may wish to consider the possibility of hidden needs or risks which may require a response from a particular agency”.
There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to agree an action plan with the resident following his initial ASB reports. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. It could also have been a way of discussing any reasonable adjustments it could make and to assign a single point of contact for the resident to approach for updates or seek clarification on the actions it was taking. The lack of a clear plan was a missed opportunity for the landlord to maintain regular contact and offer reassurance it was progressing the resident’s case, and taking the matter seriously.
The ASB policy states that all residents who report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided. The records give no indication the landlord carried out any kind of risk assessment after receiving the resident’s reports. Given the resident was telling it that the ASB was impacting his mental health, it would have been appropriate for it to have completed a risk assessment. This would have helped it identify any appropriate support it could provide, such as signposting him to Victim Support or other relevant support services. That it did not do so was a departure from its policy.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had made home visits to those involved in the ASB he had reported. It said it had also issued acceptable behaviour contracts, and that it had explored making changes to the outside area of his property to deter people playing ball games and loitering in that area. The measures the landlord took were appropriate. However, it did not take these steps until after the resident had made a complaint. It should not have been necessary for the resident to have made a complaint – and to indicate that he was taking action to move home – before the landlord took any action. The resident had to spend avoidable time and trouble prompting the landlord to act before it took the matter seriously, which was avoidable given its obligations.
In addition to the abovementioned actions, the landlord could have considered speaking to other neighbours on the estate. This would have helped establish whether others had been similarly affected, and if the resident’s concerns about ball games being played on the estate was a wider issue.
The landlord told the resident on 22 November 2022 that any information he provided to identify those causing the nuisance would help it “enforce breach of tenancy terms with offending households”. This was appropriate and shows the landlord was making attempts to gather evidence. However, there is no indication it followed up on this or sought legal advice prior to it being contacted by the resident’s solicitor in June 2024.
By having the rule against playing ball games in his lease, the landlord had created a reasonable expectation for the resident that it would act against this behaviour. The signage outside his property further confirmed this. Given there was no ambiguity that ball games were not permitted outside the resident’s home, the landlord should reasonably have sought legal advice about what action it could take. Had it done so, it could have explained to the resident what action would be proportionate in the circumstances. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing and a missed opportunity to manage his expectations.
Furthermore, it is evident the landlord’s communication prior to the resident’s complaint was poor. It provided no updates and only replied after the resident chased it for a response. For example, the landlord told the resident on 4 November 2022 that it would contact him with an update once it had “finalised” an action plan. Despite committing to do so, it failed to update him. Even when he prompted it on 22 November 2022, it was still unable to provide him with any update on an action plan. Following this, the resident told it on 20 December 2022 that he wanted to raise a formal complaint. There is no evidence the landlord responded to him to record his concerns. The landlord’s consistent lack of response would have caused the resident unnecessary frustration and distress.
The landlord’s policy states that it will work with partner agencies, such the police and community safety partnerships, and use mediation services at an early stage and where appropriate. The resident had made the landlord aware he had reported the ASB to the police. There is no evidence the landlord had liaised with the police and or any other support services in order to discuss the incidents or consider any support that was required.
Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord considered whether mediation would be appropriate in this case or whether it should offer this to the resident and other relevant parties. Mediation is an established option for resolving low-level neighbour disputes. It allows both parties to understand each other’s point of view and arrive at a mutually agreed solution, and can be an effective option for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. That the landlord could not demonstrate it had made the resident aware of its mediation service was a failing.
The ASB policy states that the Community Trigger is a process which allows members of the community to ask their local Community Safety Partnership to review responses to complaints of ASB where they feel that their concerns were not dealt with satisfactorily. The resident’s communication to the landlord shows an ongoing dissatisfaction with the way the landlord had handled his ASB concerns. Despite this, there is no indication it had made the resident aware of this option or given him information on how to request a case review. Given the length of time he had been reporting ASB and the lack of support the landlord was providing, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have advised him about the Community Trigger.
It is noted that the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident on 24 January 2024. It also referred the resident to its support hub, reviewed CCTV footage, sent warning letters and agreed to make bi-weekly calls to the resident to discuss any further incidents and update him on its actions. However, it was not until several months after the conclusion of the complaints process that it took these steps. This was also a significant amount of time after the resident made his initial reports.
The landlord’s excessive delay in taking appropriate action to respond to the ASB was a failing. It was unable to demonstrate it had taken reasonable steps to meet its obligations in line with its ASB policy or that it had intervened at an early stage to support the resident. The landlord’s maladministration would have caused him additional distress and inconvenience over a protracted period of time.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its failure to deal effectively with his ASB reports, and for the delays in taking appropriate action. It also outlined the interventions it had taken since the resident raised his complaint. Furthermore, it offered him £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of action. However, the landlord has not provided any details on how it would learn from the failures it had identified. It has not suggested how it would try and prevent other residents from experiencing similar delays in its ASB handling. In order to address this, the Ombudsman will make a learning order.

Compensation

The landlord’s complaints policy states that, where the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will consider whether it warrants a review at stage 2 of its process. If the only element that the resident remains dissatisfied with is compensation, it will carry out a review of the compensation amount offered rather than a full stage 2 investigation. A compensation review will be undertaken by a senior manager, who would otherwise be involved in reviewing the complaint at stage 2.
The resident’s desired outcome was for the landlord to reimburse him for £650 he had paid it for marketing his property. He told it that, due to its failure to respond to his ASB reports, he had decided to sell his property. Although we do not seek to question what the resident has stated, our role is not to assess the impact on the resident of the ASB itself but the impact of the landlord’s response to his reports, and any failings therein.
However, it is evident the element of the landlord’s response the resident remained dissatisfied with was the level of compensation it has offered. It was therefore reasonable for it to carry out a review of the compensation amount in line with its policy. In its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request. the landlord correctly informed him that a senior manager would review the compensation it had offered at stage 1. The landlord subsequently responded on 23 June 2023 with a revised offer of £250 and told the resident that its response concluded its internal complaints process and signposted him to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not give any reasoning behind its decision to increase its offer.
On 26 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that its revised offer was not sufficient. However, instead of reminding him that it had provided its final response, it offered to conduct a further compensation review. On 10 July 2023, the landlord wrote to him with a further and final offer of £325, which was equivalent to 50% of the costs he had paid. It told him that, as it had already rendered its services, it could not reimburse him for the full amount. It said that, it had made this decision because it “appreciated” that his request to market his property was made “because of the impacts of the ASB he was experiencing”. This was reasonable. However, it is noted that the landlord’s offer was a part reimbursement of costs and did not include any remedy in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the ASB reports.
There is no provision in the landlord’s complaints policy for more than one compensation review. It is noted that the landlord exercised its discretion by offering a further review. However, although well intentioned, it is unclear why it could not have arrived at its decision on what it considered a fair and reasonable amount at the initial review stage. Had it done so, this would have avoided the need for a further review. That the resident had to take additional time and trouble before the landlord made its final offer was a failing.
In summary, the landlord departed significantly from its ASB policy, leading to excessive and unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s reports. Its lack of action and failure to offer support at an early stage would have caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. For this reason, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to be adequate. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay further redress to recognise the impact caused by its maladministration.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will log and acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It will send a “full written response” to the within 10 working days. Where it is not possible to respond within that time, it we will contact the resident to explain this, setting out the reasons why and when they can expect to receive the response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In its stage 1 response, dated 26 May 2023, the landlord said that the resident complained to it on 15 May 2023. It has not provided any record of a complaint made on this date. Instead, the evidence shows the resident actually raised a complaint on 4 April 2023.This means that it took the landlord 35 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It has not provided us with any record to demonstrate that it formally acknowledged the complaint. Furthermore, there is no indication it contacted the resident at any time to explain the reason for the delay or provide an estimate of when it would provide a response. That the landlord departed from both its own complaints policy and the Code was service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
2. pay the resident compensation of £650, calculated as follows:
  1. £325 it offered in its response dated 10 July 2023. If it had already paid this, it should be deducted from the overall total.
  2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays responding to his ASB reports.
  3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. the landlord to undertake a review of how it calculates compensation, particularly in relation to how its offer reflects the failings identified in its investigations. Specific attention should be paid to how the landlord communicates the reasons for compensation offers with residents and ensuring they are specific to a finding rather than an arbitrary amount. The landlord should also ensure it makes every effort to calculate a fair and reasonable offer of compensation during the complaints process, thus avoiding unnecessary additional time and trouble taken by the resident. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made as a result.
2. the landlord to review its training to all staff dealing with ASB to ensure that any consideration of risk or whether further support is required should be logged as a formal risk assessment. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases. The landlord should also remind staff of the importance of agreeing action plans with the resident at an early stage. The landlord should report back to this Service to confirm it has done this.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on the importance of acknowledging and responding to complaints in a timely manner, and being fully conversant with the landlord’s own complaints process.