Sage Rented Limited (202334807)

Decision
Case ID	202334807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sage Rented Limited
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	8 December 2025

Background

1. The resident moved via a mutual exchange into a 1-bedroom maisonette in May 2024. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities including mental health issues. The resident confirmed that he moved out of the property via a mutual exchange in February 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Request to be rehoused.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about ASB, establishing what his concerns were. It informed him that smoking cigarettes or legal vapes was not a breach of tenancy. It directed him to the appropriate bodies if the issue related to smoking of an illegal substance. It also offered additional support.

Request to be rehoused

5. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident that it could not rehouse him based on the information he had provided. It directed him to other options to move, including contacting the local authority and a further mutual exchange.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns appropriately at stage 1. However, despite the resident remaining dissatisfied, it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 until over 5 months later. It accepted its failing in its stage 2 response and offered reasonable compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident the £250 compensation it offered to him at stage 2, for the delays in its handling of his complaint, if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that this payment is made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 May 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about his neighbours smoking. He said he was allergic to the fumes and was unable to sleep as a result. He asked it to move him to a detached property and issue a warning to his neighbours.
Between 15 May 2024 and 31 May 2024	The resident sent the landlord a number of emails concerning his request to be moved to a detached property and the effect of the smoking by his neighbours. He said they were smoking outside his property which was affecting his health. The landlord explained that it could not move him and that the events he described would not be classed as ASB, as the other tenants were smoking in and around their own properties.
11 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Following the resident’s initial contact, it had asked him for more information about the smoke, including where it was coming from, whether it was coming from legal or illegal substances, and medical evidence to support the health impact on him. It had informed him on 31 May 2024 that he could speak to the local authority or wait until the first year of his tenancy was completed before he could undertake a mutual exchange. This was on the basis it did could not undertake a management move, given the lack of medical evidence showing the issue was life-threatening. If the resident was able to provide medical evidence showing the issue was life-threatening, it would review the situation. Although it understood from the resident’s emails that he was raising concerns about smokers in his vicinity, neighbours smoking tobacco in their own property was legal.
From 11 June 2024 to 9 December 2024	The resident continued to send emails to the landlord, his MP, the local authority and a local councillor. These emails highlighted further instances of people smoking in a number of locations. He reiterated he wanted the landlord to move him to a detached property, and he provided it with details of alternative properties which were isolated.
13 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had thoroughly investigated the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbours. This included it attending the property, looking at the evidence the resident provided via email, and communicating with him over the matter. Based on this, it had consistently informed him that it could not move him on the basis of the grounds he had outlined. It directed the resident to report illegal activity to the police and to contact the local authority should he wish to move. The resident had moved to the property in April 2024 via a mutual exchange. It noted he had moved knowing he had a pre-existing condition, made worse by carcinogens. The resident had been under no obligation to carry out the mutual exchange, and he had not shared any concerns during the process or informed it that the property was unsuitable. Although it understood and was sympathetic from the resident’s testimony that he could not stay in the property due to the smoke, it was unable to control the lawful behaviour of people in his local area. It understood that the resident was in the process of moving via a further mutual exchange. It would support him throughout this process. Based on the resident’s correspondence, it had referred him to adult social care, who recommended he might benefit from a referral to mental health services. However, the resident did not engage with this process, so the referral was closed. It would continue to assess concerns about his wellbeing and safety and refer to relevant third parties if necessary. It offered £250 for its failure to handle the complaint which meant the resident needed to escalate it. This followed the landlord being contacted by us.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had left him in the property and would not take into account his concerns about his health. He said he had provided it with his authority to contact his GP for the medical evidence to support his request to be moved. The resident felt the landlord was “bullying” him into not allowing the mutual exchange he was engaged in to proceed.
10 February 2025	The resident ceased to be a tenant of the landlord when he moved via a mutual exchange.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. During the course of his contact with us, the resident raised concerns about 2 other landlords: his landlord immediately prior to moving to the property (in April 2024), and his landlord directly after he moved (in February 2025). Although we note that the resident’s concerns about those landlords are similar to those being investigated here, this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s tenancy with the landlord named at the top of this report. The other landlords should be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with their actions prior to our involvement. Therefore, any issue needs to be addressed directly with those landlords and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the relevant landlord’s final response.
8. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish whether ASB occurred. Instead, it is for us to determine whether, in response to the reports of ASB, the landlord followed its relevant policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord’s ASB policy says it takes a “harm centred approach” to tackling ASB. Reports of ASB are referred to its community safety team, which undertakes an initial assessment to determine the level of risk and vulnerability. This also involves determining whether the report being made meets the landlord’s definition of ASB. Following this, if the report meets the criteria, residents are contacted within 5 working days if the case is considered to be a low to medium risk. Risk assessments are reviewed regularly, and residents are kept updated. The landlord also works with partner agencies, makes referrals, and takes legal action against perpetrators where it is proportionate and reasonable to do so.
11. The resident initially contacted the landlord shortly after moving into the property. He sent a number of emails on 15 May 2024, explaining that he was allergic to the fumes associated with tobacco, cigarettes and vapes and that there was a strong smell of this in his property. He asked the landlord to install equipment to stop the fumes and provided it with details of air purifiers which he wanted it to purchase for him. In addition, the resident requested being moved to a detached home, away from smokers. The landlord acted appropriately by emailing the resident back, asking questions to enable it to further understand the situation and where the smoke was coming from.
12. Following further communication with the resident on the same day, it enquired as to whether he was referring to the smoking of legal vapes or cigarettes (as opposed to illegal substances). This was reasonable, and it explained if it was the latter, it would need to refer the matter to its community safety team.
13. As the resident continued to email the landlord using a number of different addresses over the matter, it acted appropriately by informing him on 21 May 2024 that he had a housing officer who should be contacted with his concerns. Providing a central point of contact meant that the landlord could streamline the process of understanding and responding to the resident. The landlord also reinforced on 24 May 2024 that should his neighbours be smoking in their own properties, it would not be able to do anything unless the smoking related to illegal substances. This was appropriate, as it provided the resident with information on the types of smoking that it could and could not deal with.
14. In addition to the comments about the smoking fumes, the resident also alleged that the smoking was being undertaken deliberately on his property, and he provided the landlord with some photos and videos to show this. He alleged this was harassment. The evidence shows the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and tried to obtain further details of those likely to be involved. The video and photo evidence supplied were inconclusive, and there were some questions raised over the time they had been taken. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, as they demonstrated that it was listening to the resident and attempting to follow its ASB policy. However, before it could do this, it needed to be satisfied that the events met its criteria for ASB.
15. In addition to responding to verbal communication from the resident, the landlord also attempted to carry out visits to the property. This was reasonable action for it to take, as it allowed it to observe the events the resident had been describing and the likely impact of these on him. It also allowed the landlord to discuss in person the concerns raised. The evidence shows the landlord noted at the time that there could have potentially been a language barrier. Due to this, a face-to-face meeting would have identified whether it needed to provide any additional support. We have seen evidence that the landlord was able to communicate reasonably with the resident at the time, and that there was no indication that he requested any further support from it.
16. Based on the evidence provided to it, the landlord said that the issues brought by the resident did not meet the criteria to be considered as ASB. It therefore did not follow up with the individuals who the resident said were involved in the reported behaviour. However, while the landlord did not believe that ASB was occurring, it did liaise with partner agencies and consider what further support it could offer the resident. This was appropriate, and in keeping with the landlord’s policy and good practice. The evidence shows that following further communication from the resident, the landlord continued to engage with him and look to address whether the issues he was raising met the criteria for ASB. In addition, it continued to explore whether it could provide him with additional support. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take.

Complaint	The resident’s request to be rehoused
Finding	No maladministration

17. We have investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved. This is to determine whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, including explaining the reasons for its decisions.
18. The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out that it will consider offering a resident an urgent management move if it is unsafe for them to remain in their home. This includes situations where there is a risk to life or severe harassment. Cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis using supporting evidence. The policy says that if a management move is awarded, the resident will receive one offer, which will be of a property of the same size and type to that currently occupied (unless there are exceptional circumstances).
19. The management transfer policy says that residents are advised to contact the local authority if there is limited accommodation available in the area, or if it has 100% nomination rights over the landlord’s properties. The landlord says it will work with the local authority to demonstrate the need for a management transfer.
20. Following the resident emailing the landlord to ask for a management move, it initially acted appropriately by attempting to understand the impact the smoking fumes were causing him as well as the source of the fumes. The resident informed it that he was allergic to smoke, that he was coughing up blood, and that he had been to hospital on occasions. The landlord asked for medical evidence, which was in keeping with its policy to assess the risk to the resident’s life. Based on the resident not providing supporting evidence to it (apart from his verbal testimony), it said that he did not meet the criteria for a management move. It did, however, appropriately explain alternative options available to the resident. These included a mutual exchange and approaching the local authority. Given the limited availability of stock by the landlord, this was appropriate action for it to take.
21. During his ongoing communication with the landlord, the resident provided pictures of alternative properties he wanted it to move him to. This included a detached property as well as another bungalow. The landlord acted appropriately by managing the resident’s expectations. It said that it did not own the property he had provided pictures of and that he did not meet the criteria for a managed move. It also explained that it had limited stock available. The landlord’s repeated explanations were in keeping with its management transfer policy, and were reasonable given the circumstances.
22. While the landlord did not rehouse the resident, it was made aware by him in late 2024 that he was proceeding with a mutual exchange with a tenant (from a different landlord). It acted appropriately by setting out the process and timescales involved in the mutual exchange to the resident. This was in response to the resident wanting the move to be speeded up.
23. The resident said he felt the landlord was bullying him in its communications and threatening to stop the mutual exchange process altogether. However, this is not consistent with the evidence we have seen. Despite chasing the resident on several occasions, he did not respond to it or provide the signed application form. Instead, he said he wanted to move before Christmas. The landlord’s communication to him, which he complained about, informed him that if he failed to return the signed form it would have no option but to stop the application process. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take, given that the reminders to him for the completed signed application form had not resulted in the return of the documents that were needed – both by it and by the landlord of the tenant with whom he was mutually exchanging.
24. While the landlord did not rehouse the resident, it offered him additional support during his communication with it. This included making a referral to adult social care as well as a safeguarding referral. This was based on the resident’s reference to causing himself harm and that he did not feel safe in his property (due to the smoke). The resident had also alleged that his neighbours were smoking outside his property, and he sent some pictures and videos to show this. The evidence shows the landlord considered this evidence to see if this met the threshold for harassment (under which a management move could be granted), but that it was not sufficient for the criteria to be satisfied.
25. In addition to the verbal evidence and medical evidence it requested from the resident, the landlord’s records show that it also attempted to meet face–to–face with the resident. This was so that it could observe first–hand the impact to him that the smoking was causing. This was reasonable. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes show it met with the resident in August 2024, and that a follow–up appointment which included his councillor was scheduled for 12 November 2024. However, the resident was not at the property for this second appointment. The landlord noted that its representative waited outside the resident’s property for an extended period at this no access appointment, but did not observe any evidence of smoking occurring at the time or the likely impact of this on the resident. This was appropriate, as it shows the landlord continued to assess on an ongoing basis whether the resident met the criteria for a management move.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process. It also requires them to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord’s applicable complaints policy reflects these expectations.
27. Although the resident had been sending the landlord a large number of emails asking it to move him, he first mentioned that he wished to make a complaint on 31 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this and issued its stage 1 response in keeping with the timescales in its policy.
28. The resident continued to email the landlord after receiving the stage 1 response. Some of his emails included newspaper articles, but others were clear that he still wanted it to move him, and that this was the advice he had been provided by other agencies. It was apparent from the contents of the resident’s emails that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 at that time. This was a failing by it.
29. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 until after it was contacted by us on 22 November 2024 to explain the resident had been struggling to move the complaint to stage 2. Following this contact, it acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 2 response within the timescales of its policy.
30. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response. It offered an apology and compensation. These actions demonstrated a resolution-focused approach and aligned with our dispute resolution principles.

Learning

Knowledge and information and management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was generally of a good standard, with clear notes and responses to both the resident and internally regarding the actions it was proposing. These included referrals to other agencies. However, the landlord was informed by a third party assisting the resident that it had not responded promptly to several emails sent in October 2024. Once the landlord was made aware of this, it took action to respond. To strengthen its approach, the landlord should ensure that all communication – including calls, emails and letters from all parties – is documented.

Communication

32. The landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction following its stage 1 response. While it continued to communicate and respond to his emails, it should have taken recognised his dissatisfaction and escalated the matter earlier, or communicated this option to the resident at an earlier time.