Raven Housing Trust Limited (202452870)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452870

Raven Housing Trust Limited

17 October 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. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since February 2011. The property is a 1 bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord said the resident has mobility issues, anxieties, post traumatic disorder and cancer. The resident had a representative and for the purposes of this report, both the resident and his representative will be referred to as “the resident”.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2024. He was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with his ASB reports and how they handled his complaint. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 30 December 2024.
  3. On 13 January 2025 the landlord informed the resident it needed longer to respond to his complaint, and then issued its stage 1 response on 27 January 2025, and said:
    1. It apologised for its solicitor not informing the resident about the rescheduling of the court date.
    2. Due to technical difficulties, it did not share the information about the ASB case with the police until12 December 2024 and apologised for the delay.
    3. It provided a named person for the resident to discuss his concerns going forward. It also asked the resident if he needed additional support.
    4. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its failings. It offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him. It said this was equivalent to £50 for the delays and poor communication and £100 for the distress caused to the resident.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 February 2025, because he was still unhappy with how the landlord dealt with the ASB issues. He was frustrated by the delays in sending the court documents and difficulties in contacting the landlord. He also felt the compensation offered did not match the trouble and distress he experienced. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 19 February 2025.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 18 March 2025, and said:
    1. Its stage 1 response did not fully consider its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The resident first reported an issue with his neighbour on 2 January 2019. Since then, it had used a range of tools in managing the ASB such as warning letters, tenancy cautions, acceptable behaviour contracts and possession actions.
    2. In March 2023 the court granted an injunction against the neighbour, but it had since expired. It was waiting for the court to confirm the trial dates for April 2025. It was seeking a new injunction, committal proceedings relating to the previous injunction and possession.
    3. It explained the purpose of an ASB review and signposted the resident to its website for further information.
    4. It admitted that many different staff members had worked on the ASB case over time. Once the case reached the enforcement stage, its specialist enforcement team handled the case. To make things easier for residents, it tried to limit how much back-and-forth there was between its tenancy and enforcement teams. However, it admitted it was unable to plan for every eventuality such as staff sickness and turnover of staff.
    5. It partly upheld the complaint and increased the compensation it offered at stage 1 to £200.
  6. In March 2025 the resident raised a complaint to us about how his landlord handled his ASB reports. He felt the compensation and 2 days respite offered by the landlord did not reflect the distress he experienced. He said the ASB was on going. As a resolution to his complaint, he asked for the landlord to increase the compensation, provide him with adequate support and consider rehousing him.
  7. In April 2025 the court granted the landlord a 2 year injunction against the neighbour with power of arrest (POA), along with a 2 year years suspended possession order (SPO).

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the matters significantly impacted his health, especially when he was having cancer treatment. However, we are unable to consider this. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
  2. The resident has reported ASB since 2019 and formally complained to the landlord about its handling of the matter in December 2024. Although we usually consider events which occurred up to 12 months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint, we have used discretion in this case. While the historical reports provide context to the complaint, since the court issued an injunction in March 2023, our investigation will focus on events from that point onward.
  3. As a resolution to his complaint the resident would like the landlord to rehouse him. However, it is not within our jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a resident. Whilst we can consider whether the landlord has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to his complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to ASB reported by its residents with a victim centred approach.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy says it adopts a victim centred approach when managing ASB. It promises to discuss the issues and agree action plans with the residents, keep them informed, and consider any vulnerabilities and challenges they face in reporting ASB. It explained that it will expect those reporting the ASB to do what they can to assist with the investigation, and resolution, of the ASB. When suitable, it might signpost residents for support. It works in partnerships with other agencies such as the police and support services to reach a resolution. It uses tools such as mediation, CCTV, warning letters, and legal action when appropriate, and informs residents when it closes a case.
  3. The resident reported that his neighbour was causing nuisance. He described that his neighbour and her visitors were disruptive and frequently coming and going at all hours. He said the neighbour was verbally abusive, threatening, and often appeared to be under the influence of substances. He explained that because of this, he felt unsafe in his home. He also informed the landlord on several occasions that he was receiving cancer treatment and had to stay away from the property for his recovery because of the ASB.
  4. We are an impartial service which can only base decisions on the evidence provided. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred during the period in question, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure because the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side.
  5. The resident informed us that the landlord failed to assess the risks to him from ASB, but the landlord claimed it did so in 2020 and completed the subsequent risk assessments with the Hate and ASB Risk Assessment Conference (HASBRAC). HASBRAC is a local multi-agency meeting to discuss ASB. Normally, landlords should provide us with copies of these assessments, but in this case, we accept that they were held by HASBRAC and not accessible to the landlord. While we recognise the resident disputed that the landlord assessed the risks from ASB, after considering the evidence of the case, we cannot determine that the landlord failed to consider the risks to the resident.
  6. While the landlord did not share the risk assessments with us, it showed that it took the resident’s safety seriously. It agreed for the resident to install a camera doorbell to help him feel safer, made sure it repaired the building’s entrance quickly to stop unwanted visitors, and offered to pay for him to stay in a hotel during the court case. It also explored other ways to reduce the impact of the ASB on the resident such as getting an injunction, discussing getting a closure order with the police and considering moving the resident to another property. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to manage the risks to the resident.
  7. On 16 March 2023, the court granted the landlord an ASB injunction with power of arrest against the neighbour. The landlord informed the resident of this the same day, explained the restrictions placed on the neighbour, and advised him to report any breaches to the police. It also clarified that proof of a breach must meet the legal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.” These actions were reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s ASB Policy.
  8. We understand it took 81 days for the court to issue the official order and for the injunction to be given to the neighbour, but the delay was out of the landlord’s control. During that time, the landlord kept the resident updated, explained why the delay was happening, and made it clear that the injunction was not enforceable until the court released the order. While managing the resident’s expectations, the landlord also encouraged him to keep reporting any issues and asked its solicitor to follow up with the court. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
  9. Once the injunction was in place and for the duration of the case, the landlord continued to engage with both the resident and the neighbour about the ongoing ASB. It actively investigated the issues, gathered witness statements, reviewed the evidence provided, and kept the resident informed about the progress and the actions taken. These were reasonable actions by the landlord, it acted in keeping with its ASB Policy.
  10. Between March 2023 and March 2025, the landlord worked collaboratively with the police, the local authority, and support services while investigating the ASB. It demonstrated a proactive approach by promptly informing the police about the injunction in March 2023 and regularly requesting updates from them. For instance, in July 2023, it sought information from the police about an assault involving the neighbour. In December 2024 the landlord also shared evidence of the ASB to support the police in considering whether a closure order would be appropriate. Additionally, it maintained regular contact with agencies involved in supporting the neighbour. These actions show the landlord made reasonable efforts to resolve the issues through multi-agency working.
  11. The landlord explored a range of enforcement options to address the ASB and worked closely with its legal team throughout the process. Between 2023 and 2025, it applied for two injunctions against the neighbour, submitted a committal application for breaches of the injunction, and pursued possession proceedings. Although the process was lengthy and affected by delays, including postponed court dates, the landlord remained active in seeking legal remedies. While we acknowledge that the delays caused significant distress to the resident, who was unwell, the landlord demonstrated that it was taking proportionate enforcement actions based on legal advice, and its actions were in line with its ASB Policy.
  12. In November 2024, the landlord was due in court with the resident attending as a witness. We acknowledge that this was a difficult time for the resident, who was unwell and uncertain about what to expect from the court process. We also understand his frustration when the landlord’s legal representative requested that he attend court for 3 days instead of 1. However, this was outside the landlord’s control. Between October and November 2024, the landlord maintained communication with the resident, discussed the case with him, and provided him with information on the court proceedings.
  13. In December 2024, the resident expressed frustration about the number of different people who had dealt with the ASB case. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response and explained that, while it tries to limit the number of staff involved in such cases, it could not always avoid changes due to staff turnover or sickness. Although we recognise this was disruptive for the resident, the landlord did take steps to ensure the case was covered when the usual caseworker was unavailable. This showed it was mindful of maintaining continuity and minimising the impact of staff absence on the resident and the case, which was a reasonable approach.
  14. However, the resident said that between November 2024 and January 2025, the landlord did not keep him properly informed. We acknowledge there were some delays in responding to his queries during that time. In its complaint response the landlord also admitted that its solicitor did not promptly inform the resident about the court postponing the case until April 2025. Although the landlord expected its solicitor to pass on the update, it should have contacted the resident directly about it. Especially as it knew how anxious he was about the court process and the ASB was ongoing. This fell short of the support promised in its ASB behaviour Policy.
  15. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord admitted there was a delay in sending information to the police in December 2024, due to issues with sharing a large file electronically. Although this caused a short delay, the landlord resolved the problem and sent the documents on 12 December 2024. Before that, it had been in regular contact with the police in November and December 2024 to confirm what evidence they needed for a closure order and how best to send it securely. While the delay was not ideal, we did not see evidence it affected the outcome, as the police later decided the evidence did not meet the threshold for a closure order.
  16. On 3 February 2025, the neighbour called the landlord while intoxicated and threatened to “rip the resident’s camera off the wall.” The landlord challenged the neighbour and calmed the situation by the end of the call. However, the resident later said he and the police were not informed of the threat until four weeks later. He felt the landlord should have reported it immediately, especially since the police were already investigating the neighbour for harassment against him. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to share this information sooner, we did not see evidence that the delay affected the police investigation or the overall outcome for the resident.
  17. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged and apologise for its failings. It also offered to pay £200 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, it did not explain how much of that amount related specifically to its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. As a result, we cannot say whether the offer provided reasonable redress.
  18. We determine there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We understand that the resident reported ASB from the neighbour for several years and the situation has caused him significant distress and inconvenience. We also recognise that it can take a long time to resolve such cases, especially when pursuing enforcement actions. Overall, since March 2023, the landlord has managed the ASB case in keeping with its ASB Policy. However, from its own admission there were delays in sharing information with the police and some delays in keeping the resident updated on the process of the case. Although these delays were frustrating, we did not see evidence that it affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  19. In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £125 to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s Complaint Policy is in keeping with the Code.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 12 December 2024, the landlord acknowledged his complaint 10 working days later. This was 5 days outside its published timeframe. While this was a short delay, it should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days in keeping with its Complaint Policy and the Code.
  3. On 13 January 2025 the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to his complaint. It then responded to the resident’s complaint 10 working days later, which was reasonable and in line with its published timeframe for responding to complaints.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2025, which the landlord acknowledged 4 working days later. It then issued its stage 2 complaint response 19 working days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its Complaint Policy and the Code.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord correctly acknowledged that it had not fully considered its handling of the ASB reports when it responded to the resident in January 2025 or considered its complaint handling failings at that stage.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered to pay compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on him. However, it did not say how much related to its complaint handling failings. As a result, we cannot say whether the offer provided reasonable redress.
  7. In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £75 to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him.

Determination

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to pay £200 in compensation directly to the resident by 11 November 2025, if it has not already done so. This amount includes the compensation previously offered by the landlord and is equivalent to:
    1. £125 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports on him.
    2. £75 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on the resident.