Ashford Borough Council (202433225)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433225

Ashford Borough Council

07 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), by a neighbour between August 2024 and November 2024.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The resident has asthma and migraines, which the landlord is aware of.
The resident first reported the smell of cannabis coming from a neighbouring property to her landlord on 22 August 2024. She said the cannabis smoke had woken her up and made it difficult to breath. She told it she was concerned for her daughter as her bedroom often smelt like cannabis too.
On 28 August 2024, the landlord told the resident to keep a log of the times and dates she experienced cannabis smoke from the neighbouring property. It also issued the neighbour with a community protection warning which warned them not to smoke cannabis in their property or the local area.
The community protection warning contained details of the resident’s own address as someone who had complained about the neighbour. The landlord contacted the neighbour shortly after it issued the letter to tell them not to retaliate against the resident as they now knew she had reported them to it.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 August 2024 to make a complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had shared her details with her neighbour, and they now knew she had reported them to the landlord. As a result, she felt she could make no further reports of ASB against the neighbour to the landlord or police as the neighbour would know she made the reports.
2. She was worried the neighbour would damage her property and her car because of her reporting them to it.
3. She had asked the landlord not to contact the neighbour again after it shared her details with them, but it did so anyway and told them not to retaliate against her.
4. She was experiencing emotional distress because of the situation.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 1 response to her complaint on 6 September 2024. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. The resident’s details should not have been disclosed to her neighbour, and it had reported the error to the relevant internal department.
2. It would gift the resident a ring doorbell and it would fit added security measures to the front door.
The landlord also issued the resident with an apology letter on 6 September 2024. It said additional measures had been put in place to ensure this type of error did not occur again including having senior colleagues review important documents before they were sent.
The resident made several reports of cannabis use from her neighbour to the landlord in September and October 2024. She also told it there was now a scratch on her car although she did not have evidence of who made it.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 1 October 2024. She said:
1. The landlord had committed a data breach, and an apology was not good enough.
2. She had asked the landlord not to contact the neighbour and ask them not to react or retaliate against her, but it had done so anyway.
3. The additional security measures and fear of what might happen if the neighbour saw her had left her feeling imprisoned in her own home.
4. She had to pay for a subscription to the ring doorbell.
5. The smell from the cannabis was putting off prospective mutual exchange candidates and reducing her chances of re-housing.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 response to her complaint on 25 October 2024. It said:
1. It had failed to consider the resident’s request that it not contact her neighbour again after the community protection warning. However, it said it seemed to have the desired effect as the neighbour had not contacted the resident since.
2. It had been in contact with the police and asked them to share information regarding the neighbour to help it with its investigation. It said the police did not respond with anything that would support it in taking further action against the neighbour.
3. It would pay for a 3-month subscription for the ring doorbell service for the resident. It would remove the ring doorbell after this if she wanted, otherwise it could continue to act as a deterrent.
4. It was working with her to support her in a move and advised her to increase the choice of areas she was willing to consider to help with this.
5. It would make further visits to the neighbouring property and these visits would be discreet and allow it to investigate the resident’s reports further.
6. It would offer £200 compensation for the unnecessary anxiety and distress caused by it sharing the resident’s address with her neighbour.

Events after the landlord’s final response

The landlord attempted further visits to the neighbour’s property on 1 November 2024 and 6 November 2024 to witness the ASB. The neighbour did not answer the door on either occasion.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of ASB on her health. Whilst we acknowledge the difficult experience the resident and her family have had due to ASB, the Ombudsman can consider the distress any identified failings may have had on the resident, but we cannot determine the effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she can seek independent legal advice.
We understand the resident has continued to make reports of ASB from the neighbour after the landlord issued her with its final response on 25 October 2024. This includes reports of her neighbour burning household items in close proximity to her fence in March 2025. We can only investigate matters which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, the scope of our investigation covers events up to the landlord’s final response on 25 October 2024 and any actions it committed to as part of this response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says we cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions after 25 October 2024, she can raise a new complaint with the landlord.
The resident has also raised concerns with the way the landlord has handled her reports of mould and faulty windows. However, these matters were not included in her original complaint, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these issues as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues before we get formally involved. The resident may wish to raise a formal complaint with her landlord regarding these issues. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.
The resident raised concern that the landlord committed a breach of general data protection regulation (GDPR) by sharing her address with her neighbour as part of the community protection warning. Whilst we can investigate the impact caused by the landlord sharing the resident’s address with her neighbour in relation to its handling of her reports of ASB, we cannot investigate alleged breaches of GDPR as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Should the resident wish to pursue this matter further, she can contact the ICO. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
As part of the complaint the resident expressed a desire to be rehoused. Rehousing requests which are undertaken by the local authority in accordance with its allocations policy are outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about re-housing under a local authority fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Any concerns the resident has specifically about her re-housing requests are better suited to the LGSCO and therefore not included within the scope of our investigation. The resident can contact the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states:
1. It will set out an initial plan of action including a risk assessment.
2. It will work with partner agencies to deliver an effective ASB service.
3. It seeks to respond to each report of ASB as quickly as possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord logged the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from her neighbouring property and served the neighbour with a community protection warning within 4 working days of her initial report. In the circumstances of this case, this was an appropriate timeframe and in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy to respond to reports of ASB as quickly as possible.
The landlord completed a risk assessment soon after the resident made her first report of ASB to the landlord and it scored the case ‘moderate.’ This was in keeping with its ASB policy to carry out a risk assessment at the start of an ASB case.
The landlord also acted in accordance with its ASB policy by setting out an initial plan of action by telling the resident it would send the neighbour a community protection warning and asking her to keep a record of all ASB incidents. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to keep a record ASB incidents as it could use this information to help with its investigation into the neighbour and her reports of ASB.
It was appropriate for the landlord to serve the neighbour with a community protection warning as it explained to the neighbour what the alleged ASB was, why it was a breach of their tenancy agreement, and what action the landlord could take if they continued with the alleged ASB.
The landlord made a significant error in sharing the resident’s address on the community protection warning letter with the neighbour. This made it difficult for the landlord to handle the resident’s reports of ASB effectively and caused the resident distress as she was then concerned the neighbour might retaliate should the landlord investigate them further or take any action against them.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its mistake and apologise to the resident. Its apology demonstrated an understanding of the impact the error had caused to the resident. The letter also contained examples of actions the landlord had taken to minimise the risk of the same error happening again such as senior colleagues reviewing important documents before they are sent to residents. It was positive that the landlord sought to learn from its mistakes and is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.
It was positive that the landlord warned the neighbour not to retaliate against the resident after it shared her address with them as it was trying to reduce the likelihood of them taking action against her. However, it failed to consider the resident’s concerns that its contact with them might make matters worse. The landlord should have discussed this with her before it took action. However, it was reasonable that it acknowledged this mistake and apologised at stage 2 of its complaints process.
It was positive that the landlord installed added security measures to the resident’s property including locks to the front door and a ring doorbell to act as a deterrent and in case the neighbour did retaliate. Whilst we understand that these added measures made the resident feel like a prisoner in her own home, it was still reasonable for the landlord to offer to install them as they also helped increase the security of her property. This action was also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right as it took action to reduce the potential consequences of its mistake in sharing the resident’s details with the neighbour.
The landlord also offered to pay for a 3-month subscription to the ring doorbell app. The landlord explained that it gifted ring doorbells to residents experiencing ASB, but it could not pay for subscriptions to the app. This was a reasonable explanation as we would not expect the landlord to pay the fees indefinitely. The landlord was not obliged to pay for the doorbell or any subscription for it. However, it was positive that the landlord used discretion to pay for a 3-month subscription and offered to remove the doorbell should there be no further need for the device after this time.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by working with the police and requesting information relating to the neighbour in efforts to support its investigation into them.
It was positive that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about it completing a joint visit to the neighbour with the police. It decided against this and explained it would visit the neighbour as a tenancy audit and that it would carry out a number of similar visits in the area to reduce the likelihood of the neighbour suspecting the resident had reported them again.
The landlord supported the resident with a mutual exchange and helped identify suitable properties. It also gave her advice to broaden her search areas to increase the likelihood of re-housing. This was positive by the landlord as it showed it wanted to support the resident with her preference to move.
The landlord offered the resident £200 for the distress caused by its mistake in sharing her details with her neighbour. When a landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. Although the landlord mistakenly shared the resident’s details with her neighbour, it apologised and took positive steps to put things right by continuing to investigate the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in line with its policy. As such, the landlord’s offer adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures set out above and there was reasonable redress is the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), by a neighbour between August 2024 and November 2024.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £200 compensation already offered in October 2024 if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.