Sovereign Network Group (202419762)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419762

Sovereign Network Group

8 July 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. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which began on 25 December 2017. The property is a 1-bed first floor flat. The landlord said its records show that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. There is a history of the resident making ASB reports to the landlord over several years. In March 2023, the landlord had engaged with the police and discussed these reports with the resident and her neighbour. In response to the reports, the landlord offered mediation to both parties and advice to the resident about reporting any further instances of ASB.
  3. The resident made further various reports of ASB and provided diary sheets detailing her concerns. These related to damaged possessions, throwing of bread and dog mess.
  4. On 5 March 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. She said that the landlord had not acted on her reports and just continued to ask for evidence.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 March 2024 but did not uphold the complaint. It said that, despite receiving information from the resident, this did not provide conclusive evidence that her neighbour had done the things that she alleged. The landlord added that it had spoken with her neighbour to ask that they did not throw any more bread and directed her to speak to the police about any alleged criminal activity.
  6. Following the stage 1 response, the resident raised further reports about her neighbour intimidating her and continuing to throw bread in the communal garden. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 August 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the ASB reports.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 November 2024 but did not uphold the complaint. It detailed its responses to ASB reports over several years. It said that the evidence provided would not allow it to take any enforcement action.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of her complaint and brought it to this Service for review.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges that the resident made ASB reports going back several years. However, the Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the scope of our investigation to events which occurred in the 12 months prior to the resident raising the formal complaint. On this basis, our investigation will focus on the period between March 2023 and the end of the formal complaint process in November 2024.
  2. This report may reference events from outside of this period, but these will be for contextual purposes only.

ASB Reports

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate and respond to reports and take decisive action which is reasonable and proportionate. The policy asks that residents provide evidence to assist with any investigation or enforcement action.
  2. Landlord records show the resident raised ASB reports about her neighbours on three occasions by February 2023. This included noise reports, intimidation and racial abuse. The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident and sent a letter confirming that plan. The proposed actions included the resident providing diary sheets, using the noise app and seeking advice from the local authority Environmental Health team. These were appropriate and proportionate actions.
  3. The landlord and the local police met with both the resident and her neighbours to discuss the resident’s reports. The landlord noted that it discussed available support and offered mediation between both parties. As part of its investigation, the landlord provided the police with copies of the evidence offered by the resident. Given the history of ASB reports between the parties, this multi-agency approach (seeking assistance and the views of an appropriate external agency) was reasonable.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident and said that, due to a lack of evidence to date, it would not take any enforcement action against her neighbours. Nevertheless, it also wrote to the neighbours and asked for their support in limiting any potential actions that could cause further resident concern. This was a resolution-focused approach. The landlord acted on new complaints about parking by writing to relevant residents in the area, asking for consideration of others when parking. This was also a reasonable approach.
  5. The landlord set out its position in a letter to the resident and confirmed that mediation would take place. In the absence of any evidence that would allow it to take enforcement action, the landlord’s decision to close the case on 29 March 2023 was reasonable.
  6. The resident reported damage to her car on 18 April 2023 and the landlord directed her to report this to the police. As this was criminal damage and there was no indication of a potential tenancy enforcement issue, the landlord acted appropriately in directing her to the police.
  7. In June 2023 and July 2023, the resident reported that her neighbours had left bread near her car. The resident also said that her neighbours continued to provoke her and use passive aggressive behaviour. Landlord records show that the landlord attempted to contact the resident on two occasions following this report, leaving voicemails each time, but she did not return the calls.
  8. On 31 October 2023 and 2 November 2023, the resident reported that her neighbours had left dog mess by her property, causing a smell near her front door. On 14 November 2023, the landlord called the resident to discuss her recent reports. The landlord responded and asked for further evidence and said it would provide diary sheets for the resident to complete. This was a reasonable response to these allegations.
  9. The landlord also directed the resident to speak to the police. She was concerned that as her neighbour had recently approached her, he had breached a Community Resolution Order Notice from 2021. As the landlord did not issue the notice, this was an appropriate action to take.
  10. On 13 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report her neighbours had left dog mess and bread close to her property. The resident later provided diary sheets for events between March and December 2023. On 16 February 2024, she reported that her neighbour had left a dead “weasel” outside her property.
  11. Following these reports, the landlord discussed the matter with the resident and agreed an action plan. The landlord confirmed this in writing on 13 March 2024 and asked the resident to provide further evidence of her claims. The action plan said that the landlord would liaise with the police again and that it had asked the neighbour to refrain from throwing bread.
  12. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2024, it said that it could not take enforcement action against her neighbour due to a lack of evidence. It was fair of the landlord to communicate clearly with the resident and manage her expectations on whether it would be able to progress further action.
  13. Landlord records show that following discussions with it, the police advised that there was no evidence of ASB. The landlord then closed the ASB case on 3 April 2024 and explained to the resident that this was due to a lack of evidence. This was an appropriate action as the landlord sought advice and co-operation from the police.
  14. The resident raised a further ASB report on 31 July 2024 in which she said her neighbour kept leaving the property shortly after she did, making her feel harassed. The resident provided diary sheets and reported her neighbour throwing bread outside the property again.
  15. On 21 August 2024, following the stage 2 complaint escalation and contact from an external agency and this Service, the landlord and the resident discussed her concerns and agreed a new action plan.  
  16. As part of its subsequent investigation, the landlord reviewed the history of ASB reports and liaised with the police and the local authority when doing so. Given the escalation of the resident’s concerns, this was a reasonable course of action by the landlord. Landlord records show that, as part of that investigation, it reviewed the most recent diary sheets and found no evidence of ASB.
  17. Although the landlord found no evidence of ASB, the diary sheets did show evidence of her neighbour continuing to throw bread in the communal area. As the landlord had previously talked to the neighbour about this, it should have considered further action such as meeting with, or writing to, them. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord. Although it may not have considered this as ASB, the resident had reiterated her concerns about this matter and the landlord did not follow up to either speak to the neighbour again or explain to the resident why it could not do so.
  18. While carrying out its stage 2 investigation, the landlord engaged with the local authority’s Environmental Health team about the resident’s concerns. The landlord accepted the views of that team and offered to carry out joint meetings with them and the police to set the resident’s expectations about what is, and isn’t ASB, how to report future instances and what actions could be taken.
  19. As the landlord did not consider the neighbour leaving bread in the communal area to be ASB, it was reasonable for it to discuss this with the local authority. The local authority could then potentially take actions, where the landlord could not, if it felt this would be considered a littering problem or have the potential to attract vermin. Again, the landlord should have offered clarity to the resident on how this matter would be addressed and whether it would continue any involvement in future.
  20. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it provided a breakdown of the allegations made by the resident and its response to each. The landlord explained how the resident could make further reports and that it would require evidence which showed that her neighbour was responsible for any alleged ASB. The landlord’s reasoning for the continued lack of tenancy enforcement action was reasonable.
  21. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had spoken to her neighbour about leaving bread outside and the neighbour agreed not to do so anymore. Landlord records show no further reports of bread being left in the communal area after the stage 2 complaint.
  22. In summary, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did not ignore the resident’s ASB reports. Although it did not take enforcement action, this was reasonable given the lack of evidence showing her neighbours had breached their tenancy. The landlord acted on the ASB reports by discussing them with both parties, offering mediation, taking a multi–agency approach and keeping the resident informed throughout.
  23. Given the allegations made by the resident, it is understandable that she is unhappy that the landlord took no enforcement action. However, the landlord would require robust evidence demonstrating a breach of tenancy. In the absence of such evidence, it is limited in the actions it may pursue. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted on the ASB reports in line with its policy and in a reasonable manner.
  24. Nevertheless, to avoid any confusion or unnecessary time and trouble for the resident, it would have been beneficial if the landlord offered a clearer explanation on what it would, and would not, consider as ASB throughout the timeline. This was particularly with reference to the events in 2024 on the throwing of bread. This may have managed the resident’s expectations better. Overall, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. The landlord’s failing was minor however and we have ordered an apology in order for it to put things right.

The resident’s complaint

  1. After receiving the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation, the landlord carried out a comprehensive investigation into the complaint. Although this showed a desire to ensure it provided an appropriate and full response, the resident was not kept informed throughout this process.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a written stage 2 response within 20 working days and, if required, the resident should be made aware of any delays. It took more than 3 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response in this case and it is evident that it did not keep the resident updated during this period. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. However, the landlord offered compensation of £50 for this failing. This level of compensation is proportionate where there was a short term landlord failing that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. Given the circumstances of this case, this compensation award was sufficient alongside the landlord’s apology. We have therefore found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failing in the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

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

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report relating to its handling of the ASB reports.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, within 28 days of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation amount of £50 (for complaint handling) that it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.