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.

Ocean Housing Limited (202451771)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451771

Ocean Housing 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 handling of:
    1. A hot water cylinder replacement.
    2. The resident’s reports of obstructions in the communal area.
    3. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. The resident’s request for a property transfer.
    5. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 23 August 2021. The property is a 1-bed ground floor flat. Landlord records show the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. In July 2023, the resident experienced a loss of hot water for 9 days following the installation of a replacement hot water cylinder. On 14 November 2023, he raised concerns about the way the landlord managed the replacement. The resident also mentioned the size of a bush in the communal garden and other residents leaving mobility scooters across paths in the communal area.
  3. In March 2024, the resident raised a complaint about the continued issue with mobility scooters. The landlord responded and said it had previously arranged for other residents to move the scooters. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 May 2024 regarding these concerns. 
  4. On 17 May 2024, the landlord received a report of a confrontation between the resident and his neighbour. The resident later reported that his neighbour had posted about him on social media, which led to threats within the comments on the social media post. 
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 27 May 2024 about the landlord’s handling of ASB following the recent issues with his neighbour. He questioned the landlord’s processes and reiterated his concerns about the scooters.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 12 June 2024, in which it addressed several issues it had discussed with the resident as part of his complaint. Within the response, the landlord said the following:
    1. Reoccurrences of the scooters left across pathways was not an indication that its processes did not work.
    2. It had told the neighbour to remove the social media post and offered mediation with the neighbours due to the recent issues.
    3. It did not tell his neighbours that he had made complaints about them.
    4. It did not consider its actions confrontational when checking on his welfare by attending the property in early May 2024.
    5. It offered compensation of £50 for a delay in updating him about the removal of the social media post.
  7. On 22 July 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of recent ASB related incidents. Within the escalation, the resident reiterated concerns about scooters, a consultation on building a shed for those scooters, the hot water cylinder replacement and his desire for a property transfer.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. It said the following:
    1. It denied showing favouritism to his neighbours.
    2. It explained its handling of ASB reports during the complaint period.
    3. It denied threatening his tenancy in a letter it sent to him.
    4. It detailed assistance it had offered in trying to support his request to move.
    5. It acknowledged the delay in the water tank replacement.
    6. It acknowledged that it had not cut the bush back as agreed.
    7. It advised that it had managed the consultation about a scooter shed in a reasonable manner.
    8. It offered total compensation of £450 across both complaint stages for failings linked to the water tank, the bush and the ASB.
  9. The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 19 March 2025 as he remained unhappy with the support offered by the landlord since the stage 2 response. He said the landlord should provide him with a management move to another area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Landlord records show that the resident raised multiple complaints over the past 3 years. The focus of this investigation will be the complaint logged on 27 May 2024. The investigation will only consider relevant events for a period of 12 months prior to the resident raising the stage 1 complaint and those up to the end of the complaint process on 21 August 2024.
  2. We will not consider any historical or more recent complaints in our determination of the case. The resident may wish to raise any more recent complaints to us for investigation if they have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process and he remains dissatisfied.

Hot water cylinder replacement

  1. It is not disputed by the landlord that an error on its part led to the resident being without a hot water cylinder for 9 days. Landlord records show that it acknowledged it had agreed to fit a smaller tank when it replaced the tank in July 2023. However, it did not immediately supply the smaller tank which meant that it removed the older tank but did not have the correct sized version to replace it. This was a significant service failing on the part of the landlord, leaving the resident without hot water for 9 days.
  2. The landlord remained in contact with the resident and ensured it replaced the tank once it received the correct size. The landlord acted reasonably during this delay period.
  3. When addressing the stage 2 complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation of £250 for the failings linked to the cylinder replacement. The offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. The level of compensation was therefore appropriate given the circumstances of the case alongside the apology.
  4. Considering the failings identified and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that it offered reasonable redress in its handling of the hot water cylinder replacement.

Obstructions in communal area

  1. On 11 November 2023, the resident raised concerns about scooters left across paths, solar lights causing a trip hazard and the size of a bush in the communal garden. The landlord responded 3 days later and said it would investigate each of these issues. This was a reasonable initial response from the landlord.
  2. However, there is no evidence of any follow up actions taken by the landlord following the report in November 2023. Despite emailing the landlord about other matters in the subsequent months, the resident did not mention the problem again until March 2024.
  3. On 11 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged a new complaint (ref 9306) from the resident about the scooters. It responded on 27 March 2024 and upheld the complaint. The response said it had acted on the resident’s reports in November 2023 but noted that the problem with the scooters had reoccurred. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its shortcoming and said it should have monitored the situation since the previous report.
  4. The resident responded to the landlord on 27 March 2024 and said it had not cut the bush as apparently agreed. There seemed to be no response to this concern within the stage 2 response it sent on 9 May 2024. It was unreasonable that it apparently took no further action to address this report.
  5. Within its August 2024 stage 2 response for the following complaint which is subject of our investigation (ref 9633), the landlord acknowledged that it did not cut the bush back when it said it would. It apologised, said it had since cut the bush and offered £100 compensation. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings which had an adverse impact on the resident.
  6. Following the complaint in March 2024 (ref 9306), the landlord reminded the neighbours responsible for the scooters of their responsibility to store them safely. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take in addressing the resident’s complaint. Following this reminder, the neighbours requested permission from the landlord to allow construction of a storage shed for the scooters. This shows the landlord’s actions had a positive impact on the situation and other solutions were being explored.
  7. On 17 May 2024, the resident reported that somebody had left scooters across the paths again. The landlord responded on 20 May 2024 to advise that it had agreed a storage position with one of the scooter owners that did not impede access, and it had arranged for the neighbour to move the other scooter. In this instance, the landlord responded quickly and took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.
  8. Following the stage 1 response (ref 9633) in June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbours and reiterated its position about the storage of scooters. The letter warned the neighbours of potential tenancy action if the matters continued.
  9. In summary, the resident’s frustration about the scooters left in the communal area was understandable and there was an initial shortcoming in the landlord’s communications. However, the landlord acted fairly on his further reports of this problem and, as the issues continued, it escalated the matter accordingly, leading to a warning of potential tenancy enforcement action. Overall, in addressing the reports of obstructions in the communal area, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. It delayed in cutting back a bush which the resident raised as a concern but its apology and compensation were proportionate given the circumstances of the case. 

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that following a report of ASB, an initial interview will take place within 1 working day for an urgent case and 5 working days for a non-urgent case. The policy says the landlord should complete a risk assessment and agree both a contact and an action plan.
  2. Within his complaint submission, the resident questioned the landlord’s handling of ASB incidents in May 2024. The first incident related to the landlord attending his property, following reports of shouting within the home.
  3. The landlord received a report of shouting within the resident’s property from a neighbour around 3 May 2024 (the exact date is unclear). The landlord said it attended the property to investigate due to concerns for the resident’s welfare. It noted that it could see people in the property but, despite its efforts to get a response, nobody answered the door. The landlord said that the resident called shortly after to question why it had attended.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord attending unannounced and said that its actions caused his daughter and her partner significant distress. It is understandable that the landlord’s visit attempt may have seemed urgent and come across as severe. However, given its concerns for the resident’s welfare, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take such steps.
  5. Following a confrontation between the resident and his neighbours on 16 May 2024, the landlord received ASB reports from several parties about the incident. It recorded this under the same ASB case as the incident from earlier that month. Given the nature of the incident and reports from other residents expressing concern about the ‘aggressive’ behaviour and in obtaining a crime reference number, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this an urgent case. It failed to take action within 1 working day of the report.
  6. On 21 May 2024, the resident reported that his neighbour made a social media post relating to their dispute, identifying him within the post. The resident reported that, within the comments to that post, a relative of the neighbour’s made a threat of violence. The landlord acted on the report, and the neighbour removed the post. Given the threats within the comments, the landlord acted appropriately in urgently addressing this and ensuring the alleged perpetrator took the necessary steps.    
  7. The landlord met with both parties due to the number of recent ASB reports. The meeting with the resident took place on 30 May 2024, 8 working days after the report. The landlord explained that the resident initially refused to meet with its safety officer. However, the offer was actually for him to meet with it and the neighbour. As this was an initial interview about the recent incidents, this was not appropriate. This was a service failing as it should have carried out separate interviews and the landlord did not meet the timeframe set out in its policy for either urgent or non-urgent ASB cases.
  8. Following the interview with the resident, the landlord offered mediation between him and his neighbour. He refused the offer. Given the history of disputes between both parties, the landlord’s offer was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
  9. The landlord wrote to both parties on 24 June 2024 and confirmed closure of the ASB case it had opened in early May 2024. The resident said he was unhappy with the contents of the letter in both the landlord’s account of the initial incident and in its reference to consideration of tenancy action.
  10. The landlord’s letter does reference the report of shouting within the property from early May 2024. The description was based on the notes recorded on the ASB case and following the landlord’s conversation with the resident’s daughter. The landlord’s account does not label the incident as ASB or threaten any action relating to this incident.
  11. Within that letter, the landlord referred to consideration of potential tenancy action. However, this relates to both him and his neighbours due to the frequency of recent disputes between both parties. As the landlord had received ASB related reports from both parties, including confrontational behaviour, threats and additional concerns from other residents, it was reasonable for it to warn that it could consider further action in line with its ASB policy.
  12. In summary, the landlord should have acted sooner when it received the ASB report of the confrontation between the resident and his neighbour. In the time between the report and the interviews with both parties, the issue escalated, leaving the resident and other residents, feeling distressed.
  13. Although it then took some reasonable steps to address the reports, the landlord failed, or delayed, completing others. The ASB case records lacked detail, meaning that it does not provide an accurate audit trail of its actions. This kind of record keeping failure can lead to missed opportunities in managing ASB cases.
  14. The landlord acknowledged within the stage 1 response that it failed to make the resident aware of the actions it took in getting the social media post removed. Within the stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it was also late in completing a risk assessment with the resident following the ASB report.
  15. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay and communications failing. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failings in handling the resident’s ASB reports.

The resident’s request for a property transfer

  1. Within the resident’s complaint submission, he asked that the landlord arrange a management transfer for him to go to a property in another area. The landlord had already explained that even if he qualified for a management transfer, it could not arrange a move to another area as it did not have stock in that area. As landlords can only allocate properties from within its own stock, the landlord’s position was reasonable.
  2. In November 2023, the resident discussed seeking a move from his property to a different area. The landlord suggested using Homeswapper to seek a mutual exchange or for him to contact the local authority in the area he wished to move to and apply through their housing register. The landlord’s advice was appropriate given the resident’s desire to move to another area which was outside of its influence.
  3. The resident asked for a copy of the landlord’s policy on tenancy transfers. He later said he did not receive it and the records show no evidence it was provided. However, as the resident was seeking a tenancy in a different area, its transfer policy would not have been applicable.
  4. The resident confirmed that he had registered for Homeswapper and made an application to join the Northumberland housing register in January 2024.
  5. Within its August 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s desire to move out of area and agreed to provide additional assistance with his search for a move. The landlord’s proposal was reasonable, given there was no obligation for it to do so.
  6. Since the stage 2 response, evidence shows that the landlord contacted authorities in different areas to seek assistance in finding a new property for the resident. Although, to date, the resident is yet to obtain a move, the landlord has used its discretion to assist where possible. On this basis, we find no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot provide a response in the times set out in the policy, it should provide the resident with an expected timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the process were narrowly outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. Given the depth of each investigation and the level of information provided in the responses, we consider these short delays a minor shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
  3. The stage 1 complaint in May 2024 related to the ASB reports and mentioned the problem with scooters. Despite these being the substantive issues raised within the complaint, the landlord pro-actively sought to fully understand the complaint, discussing it with the resident before providing a comprehensive response. The landlord acted appropriately in ensuring that its response showed a full understanding of the complaint, rather than just answering the initial issues raised by the resident.
  4. When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he raised several other landlord actions that were not part of the initial complaint. These included assertions of favouritism towards his neighbours, suggestions that the landlord threatened his tenancy and parking concerns. The landlord again provided a comprehensive response which answered the resident’s concerns in full.
  5. In summary, the landlord ensured that it had a full understanding of the resident’s complaint and provided clear and detailed responses to his concerns. The landlord acknowledged failings in some elements of the service it provided and offered compensation where needed. We find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.   

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the hot water cylinder replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of obstructions in the communal area.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer. 
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation amount of £450 that it offered through the complaints process, made up of £250 (for the impact caused by the hot water cylinder install delay), £100 (for the delay in cutting back the bush) and £100 (for ASB failings). The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that these amounts are paid.