We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202404865)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404865

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 response to reports of:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Damage due to the ASB.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat. The flat has a communal roof garden at the front of the property. The communal roof is managed by a separate managing agent.
  2. The resident has raised complaints about ASB in the communal garden since at least 2021. This has included noise complaints, use of illicit substances, the behaviour of children in the garden and damage to her property due to football games being played.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 February 2024. She said that this issue had been causing her distress for several years. She stated that footballs had caused damage to her property and that her daughter had been traumatised due to the ASB.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 March 2024. It said that the resident had raised ASB issues since 2022 but said that it had provided regular updates. It said it was working with different parties, including the police to tackle the ASB. It said it spoke with the resident on 29 January 2024 and 16 February 2024 regarding the ASB. It noted that the resident had also reported 2 communal doors as broken during the complaint and that these had since been checked and found to be working.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 March 2024. She said that she had been receiving updates but there had been no resolution. She said that her daughter struggled with loud noises due to having Autism. She also said that her window handle had been broken for some time.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. It said that it had updated the resident on 28 March 2024. It said that if the resident was able to provide details of the specific children who were involved in ASB it would contact the parents, to try and take positive action to prevent the behaviour. It also said that the managing agent was responsible for the gardens. It said it had spoken with the managing agent regarding a possible change to the layout of the gardens. It said it would continue to speak to the managing agents about them patrolling the gardens to try and prevent the ASB. It further said the ASB case was part of a wider case to address issues across the housing complex. The landlord said that all repairs had now been completed. The landlord offered £50 for distress, £50 for time to raise the complaint and £150 for the damage to the property.
  7. The resident has informed the Housing Ombudsman that she is unhappy with the response and the ASB issues are ongoing. She has also said her windows remain damaged.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the issues had been ongoing for a number of years prior to her formal complaint. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint until 15 February 2024. As such we will consider events from 15 February 2023. The first relevant piece of evidence after this date is from 4 May 2023. Events prior to this are noted for context only.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

  1. On 4 May 2023, the landlord noted that it had received reports from the resident of ASB by unknown perpetrators. It said it had contacted the police, and it was planning to complete a site visit. Both of these interventions are in the landlord’s ASB policy as methods to explore when dealing with ASB. We note that the record for 4 May 2023 does not contain specific details of the most recent reports of ASB. While the intervention from the landlord is reasonable, we would encourage them to keep detailed records regarding ASB cases.
  2. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord is expected to review any open ASB case regularly. We note from the records the landlord was doing this on a monthly basis. We consider this to be reasonable.
  3. On 12 June 2023, the landlord noted that it had completed a site visit, and options were being explored to put in a guard for the park. It said that the alleged perpetrators were unknown. In the absence of knowing the alleged perpetrators, the landlord has demonstrated it was responding reasonably, by considering options which may help prevent the ASB from occurring.
  4. On 10 July 2023, the landlord recorded that it had spoken to the resident. It had confirmed that it was struggling to manage the ASB as the perpetrators were unknown. It asked the resident to keep reporting new incidents and provide any identifying factors of the alleged perpetrators. The landlord responded reasonably by asking the resident to keep reporting ASB incidents.
  5. On 22 August 2023, the landlord has noted 3 different complainants advising of ASB in the communal area. It is unclear from the records which, if any, are the resident. The reports included ball games on the roof garden, young children in the playground until 10pm and unknown young people gaining access to communal areas. The landlord’s ASB policy encourages partnership working. The landlord agreed to arrange a meeting between the local police and council and the concierge of the building. The landlord took reasonable action to address the ASB. It also requested any available CCTV from the managing agent and sent letters to all residents reminding them of their responsibility to ensure their children were not causing ASB.
  6. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email from 29 August 2023. Within this the landlord raised some challenges it had in tackling the ASB. This included that management of the garden where the resident had reported ASB was not the responsibility of the landlord. It also noted that a door in which non-resident young people might be gaining access to the garden was a fire exit and as such could not be locked. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was responsible for tackling ASB from its residents, and that it is responsible for raising issues with the managing agent. However, it is unable to take certain measures in a garden which it did not own. It was also reasonable that it did not lock a fire door as this would be a health and safety risk and so sought to manage the issue in other ways.
  7. Within the same email the landlord made a number of suggestions of actions which it could take. It suggested holding a meeting with the safer neighbourhood team and the residents of the building as this had been successful in the past. It also suggested speaking with the management agent, who were responsible for patrolling the property, to see if they could increase these patrols. We have not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the relevant parties to arrange a safer neighbourhood meeting, however, which was a missed opportunity. However, we note it contacted the managing agent who confirmed it patrolled the block up to 3 times a day.
  8. The landlord completed a joint site visit with the concierge on 2 September 2023. It identified several issues. In relation to the ASB it recognised that it needed to be clearer on what responsibility it had and what was the managing agent’s responsibility. The landlord has shown it was continuing to work in partnership as per its ASB policy.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2023 to request an update on what it was doing regarding the ASB. The landlord responded on 25 September 2023 with a list of all actions it was taking. This included discussing whether further CCTV could be installed. It advised the resident it would contact her again on 10 October 2023. The landlord has demonstrated that it was providing the resident with meaningful updates.
  10. The landlord has recorded that it spoke to multiple complainants on 16 October 2023 to provide an update and discuss any recent ASB. As the data is not identifiable, we are unable to confirm what the landlord said to the resident at that time. However, on 14 November 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter with specific actions it was considering to tackle the ASB. It confirmed it had done another site visit on 18 October 2023. It said it was writing to parents of children who it had identified as potential perpetrators of ASB and that it was considering whether it could put planters in front of the resident’s home to prevent balls being kicked against it. The landlord also said it was considering a noise device which was a deterrent to young people, and additional CCTV. The landlord has demonstrated it was continuing to explore options to tackle the ASB.
  11. The landlord sent a further update to the resident on 13 December 2023. It had confirmed that it had done another site visit on 11 December 2023. The landlord has demonstrated that it undertook several site visits to explore what options it had to tackle the ASB. The landlord noted it was looking into a one-way gate for the fire exit; however, this would ultimately be the responsibility of the managing agent. The landlord continued to demonstrate it was looking at new ways to tackle the ASB.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised that it had been regularly keeping in touch with the resident and that it was exploring options to tackle the ASB. The response was accurate; however, the landlord could have considered providing an update on previously suggested methods to tackle ASB in the response. While this may have been beneficial, we recognise that the landlord was providing separate comprehensive updates on a regular basis.
  13. The resident continued to make reports of ASB, specifically of balls being kicked against her property. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 28 March 2024. It outlined that the managing agent was responsible for the garden, and although it was working closely with them, it could not close the garden. It also said that in the absence of knowing who the perpetrators were, it could only send general letters to all residents regarding ASB. The resident was unhappy with this, she said that she had provided details of children who were involved, and that she felt like she was being passed between the managing agent, landlord and concierge. The landlord responded to this on 4 April 2024 and said it would discuss the reports the resident had made regarding specific children with the ASB team. It also acknowledged that there had been a difference of opinion between the managing agent and the landlord regarding responsibilities, and it was going to arrange a further joint visit. The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and considered reasonable solutions.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s concerns and empathised with the length of time the matter had been ongoing. It reiterated what it had done to date and also said it was exploring a further option to change the layout of the garden; however, it was ultimately the managing agent that would be responsible for this. The landlord recognised that the resident had experienced inconvenience and distress and that the resident had put effort into raising the complaint. Although it did not find fault in its handling, it offered £100. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not need to offer compensation, as it found no fault, but considers it positive that the landlord considered all the circumstances.
  15. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will complete a risk assessment when it handles a new ASB case. We have not seen a risk assessment. Due to the length of time the ASB case has been ongoing, it is possible this was done prior to the period of time the Ombudsman is investigating. However, the ASB policy states that the landlord should update risk assessments regularly. The resident has said on a number of occasions that the ASB affects her daughter due to having Autism, and we would have expected the landlord to record and assess risk on this basis. The landlord has not provided evidence it did this.
  16. The Ombudsman recognises that the ASB has been ongoing for a long period of time, and that this has caused distress to the resident. However, we have found that the landlord has been responsive to concerns raised and has explored options to tackle the ASB. We recognise that there were limitations in what the landlord was able to do due to different parties having responsibility over different areas in the housing complex. However, it has evidenced that it has taken a muti partnership approach and continued to look for resolutions. While the landlord has responded appropriately to the reports of ASB, we note that it has not evidenced that it updated the risk assessment, as per its ASB policy. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
  17. We have made an order for the landlord to update its risk assessment with the resident, and to provide the Ombudsman with a copy.

The landlord’s response to damage due to the ASB

  1. On 17 September 2023, the resident raised that the main door and a fire door were broken, and she was concerned about a security risk. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord would be responsible for keeping these doors in good repair. We would expect the landlord to respond and advise how it would complete the necessary repairs. We have not seen that it did this.
  2. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that both doors previously reported as broken had been checked and were working as of 27 February 2024. The evidence we have reviewed shows the resident reported the damage to the ASB team and not the repairs team. It is not evident this was passed internally to the correct team within a timely manner, and it was some months after the resident reported the damage that the landlord confirmed they were now working. While it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure the doors were working, we expect the landlord to ensure it passes repairs to the correct team, or to ensure the resident knows how to report a repair to the correct team.
  3. The resident also raised in her stage 1 complaint that her window handle was damaged due to a ball being kicked at it. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 response that the window handle had been damaged on more than one occasion by balls. However, it did not confirm if it had repaired the window, or if it was planning on further repairs. This was a missed opportunity for it to set out how it would resolve the issues, which would have caused frustration for the resident.
  4. In her escalation request the resident noted the landlord had not fixed her window handle. We note that the stage 2 response said all repairs were complete, but it did not specifically mention the windows. Given the resident had raised this as part of her complaint and escalation, we would expect the landlord to ensure it provided assurances it had repaired this. We understand from an email sent by the resident on 13 May 2024 that the landlord had subsequently fixed the window, which was appropriate; however, it was a failing that it did not provide a position on this in its formal response.
  5. On 27 March 2024, the resident said there had been approximately £150 damage to her garden due to the ASB. In such circumstances, it may be reasonable for a landlord to refer a resident to their insurer or its own indemnity insurer. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 it agreed to reimburse the resident £150. The landlord has shown it considered the resident’s request and reached a resolution by appropriately using its discretion to offer compensation.
  6. The landlord reimbursed the resident for damage to her garden due to the ASB. It also appears to have completed all repairs, although we have found there was a delay in responding to the repairs of communal doors, and that the landlord could have addressed the resident’s repairs to the window more clearly. Given that the repairs have been completed and there was a reasonable offer of compensation, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage. However, we note the resident has ongoing concerns about her windows and so a recommendation has been made that the landlord contacts the resident to ensure her windows are in working order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to damage due to the ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to update the risk assessment with the resident. It should provide an updated copy of the risk assessment to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that landlord re-offer the £250 compensation if it has not already paid this.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that her window is working, and no further repairs are required.