Estuary Housing Association Limited (202430696)

Decision
Case ID	202430696
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Estuary Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident made anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports which centred on the behaviour of children around her property. She felt the landlord did not take her concerns seriously and did not act or investigate accordingly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti-social (ASB) reports.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.
5. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord correctly set the resident’s expectations in terms of what evidence it required and the actions it could take.
   2. The landlord took a multi-agency approach in managing the resident’s reports.
   3. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB.
   4. There was a missed opportunity to open an ASB case when the resident reported that the behaviour had escalated but it did take appropriate steps in response to the reports nevertheless.
   5. There was a minor delay at stage 1 of the complaints process.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failure identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 December 2025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 August 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She explained that children in the area had caused damage to her property and this had affected her health but the landlord had not taken it seriously. The resident requested that the landlord install and enforce ‘no ball games’ signs.
19 September 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 response in which it provided a timeline of events and actions it had taken since May 2022. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and said: It had acted on her reports and taken appropriate action. It could only take action against its residents. The estate management company had agreed to install signage in the area.
1 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was unhappy the landlord did not consider her reports as ASB and it had therefore not followed its own ASB policy.
25 October 2024	The landlord provided a stage 2 response in which it partially upheld the complaint. The landlord said that although it felt it had acted appropriately in managing most reports, it should have raised an ASB case over more recent concerns about targeted abuse. The landlord proposed actions to assist with her concerns of ASB.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s management of her ASB reports and requested compensation

 

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	Landlord’s handling of ASB reports
Finding	No maladministration

7. The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014’s definition of ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The resident’s allegations about abusive behaviour could be considered ASB under this definition.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it does not deem all reports relating to behaviour that impacts an individual as ASB; one noted example is ‘children playing’. The policy says that the landlord will look to manage expectations about behaviour that it does not deem anti–social. 
9. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice.
10. On 23 February 2024, the resident reported children were kicking footballs against her property. The landlord took details of the children involved and wrote to their parents to ask that they not continue with this behaviour. The landlord also engaged with the management company for the housing estate and asked that they put up ‘no ball games’ signs, as per the resident’s request. The landlord’s actions were reasonable given the resident’s reports.
11. The landlord continued to liaise with the estate management company and asked that they communicate a similar message to all residents on the estate. As the landlord was not responsible for all properties on the estate, this was an appropriate course of action showing a desire to address the resident’s concerns. The estate management company provided an estate wide reminder about ball games on the estate on 9 May 2024.
12. In July 2024, the resident raised further concerns with the landlord about similar behaviours. Following these reports, the landlord engaged with the properties involved through calls and visits to neighbours to prevent further such reports. As not all children involved lived in landlord properties, it directed the resident to make reports about those children to the estate management company. The landlord’s actions were appropriate given the continued nature of the reports.
13. Following additional reports from the resident in August 2024, the landlord contacted the children’s parents, asking that they refrain from ball games and littering in communal areas. Landlord records show that it engaged with relevant parents after issuing letters to them. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and resolution-focused, showing a continued desire to limit the reported behaviours.
14. Within her complaint, the resident referred to children playing ball games causing damage to her property. The landlord had previously directed the resident to report any criminal damage to the police and then to provide it with crime reference numbers. The landlord’s advice was appropriate. Landlord records show no evidence of the resident providing any reference numbers relating to damage to her property.
15. Within its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it missed earlier opportunities to log a formal ASB case. This related to the resident’s view that some behaviours were targeted. We may have considered this a service failing on the part of the landlord. In this case, any impact of such a failing was limited as the landlord took proportionate and reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports even without a formal case being open. The landlord set the resident’s expectations throughout, engaged with the estate management company, directed her to report criminal activity to the police and liaised with the parents of the children she reported.
16. Within the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would open an ASB case and carry out further multi-agency work to reduce the impact on the resident. Landlord records show that it subsequently created an action plan and engaged further with the local police and the estate management company soon after responding to the complaint. The estate management company then installed signs in the area. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and were carried out in a timely manner.
17. In summary, as the landlord did not own the area where the children congregated, there were limits to the action it could take. The landlord set the resident’s expectations in terms of the actions it could take throughout the complaint period. When provided with details of the children involved, the landlord discussed the matter with their parents, and it arranged for the estate management company to send out an estate wide reminder that they did not allow ball games in the area. The landlord directed the resident to the police for any criminal behaviour and maintained a similar multi–agency approach throughout. On this basis, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.    

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, provide a stage 1 response in 10 working days and provide a stage 2 response in 20 working days. The policy says that the landlord should inform the resident of any potential delay if it cannot provide the response within the timeframe set out in its policy.
19. The landlord did not provide an acknowledgement or a stage 1 response within the timeframe set out in its policy. The acknowledgement took 9 working days, and the stage 1 response took 17 working days. These delays were unnecessary but there was minimal impact on the resident. In view of this, we make a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to apologise for the minor delay.

Learning

ASB

20. Given the number of reports from the resident, the landlord could have managed the reports as an ASB case earlier. The landlord’s position that the reports were ‘children playing’ led to the resident feeling her experiences were downplayed, despite its appropriate actions in response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was good, meaning it was able to offer records which provided a clear audit trail of the events which made up the resident’s complaint.

Communication

22. The landlord maintained a good level of communication with the resident when managing her reports of ASB. However, it should have acknowledged the stage 1 complaint earlier and advised the resident of any delay in providing its stage 1 response. It may wish to consider how it communications with residents where it delays in a complaint response.