Progress Housing Association Limited (202453320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453320

Progress Housing Association Limited

29 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The handling of her antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports about her neighbours and counter-allegations.
2. The handling of her complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2018. The property is a 3-bedroom house on a cul-de-sac. The street is a public highway so any legally parked car can used the space. She lives in the property with her 3 children. Her next-door neighbours (the neighbours) are a family and are owner-occupiers.
During 2024, the resident and her neighbours made reports about the other party’s behaviour to the police and the landlord. Reports included nuisance from animals that the resident kept, parking and boundary disputes, intimidating behaviour by the neighbours, and offensive social media posts. The police with the landlord decided to serve a Community Protection Warning (CPW) on both parties.
On 16 November 2024, the resident sent a joint complaint to the police and the landlord. She made the following points:
1. She was unhappy she would be served with a CPW. She thought the landlord believed her neighbours’ allegations, without supporting evidence.
2. She, in fact, had been subject to intimidation, threats, and harassment over the years from the neighbours. A neighbour had thrown her children’s bikes and scooters from a shared alley, cut her hedge in her back garden down allowing them to look in, and walked across her property which was intimidating. There was also a parking dispute, including her neighbours parking in front of her property but objecting to her parking in front of theirs.
3. She had not been asked to answer the allegations against her.
4. She had suggested mediation but had not heard back.
5. She wanted a face-to-face meeting.
The landlord after meeting the resident with the police sent the stage 1 response on 11 December 2024. It stated the following:
1. At the meeting, the resident did not show she had made reports by texts or by phone against the neighbours.
2. In response to emails sent on 29 August 2024 and 3 September 2024, the housing officer, emailed and phoned, then arranged to meet the resident on 13 September 2024.
3. At the meeting with the police where the CPW was served, it warned the resident about inconsiderate parking having considered photos and videos. It also warned her about using derogatory language about the neighbours on social media.
4. It had asked the resident to remove a structure she erected for boarding animals connected to running her business. However, the resident replaced it with a larger structure used for a rabbit breeding business. It needed to consider the impact any nuisance had on her neighbours.
5. It believed the resident held a “belief of entitlement” that she could abuse her neighbours and allow her animals connected with her various businesses to cause nuisance. It noted that the resident had 3 vehicles which she drove over the pavement, and which it thought was exacerbating the situation with her neighbours.
6. At the meeting, it said it would consider formal action against the resident’s tenancy if she continued “this course of action”. It apologised if the resident considered this “threatening”. It was not considering action against the resident currently. However, she would need to seek written permission for the larger shed she had installed.
7. It noted the resident would be engaging in shuttle mediation.
8. In conclusion, it did not uphold the complaint as it did not think its standard of service fell below a reasonable level.
On 2 January 2025, the resident advised the landlord by online chat she wanted to escalate her complaint as she was unsatisfied with the response. The landlord escalated the complaint but did not obtain details from the resident why her complaint was unresolved. The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman this was on the advice of the mediator at the time. The landlord has stated the mediator recommended against making contact with the resident. This was because the resident had advised the mediator she did not wish to engage with the landlord.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 29 January 2025 and found the following:
1. It had opened another ASB case regarding the resident’s dog chasing a cat. It was satisfied with the action the resident had taken. There was no current ASB case against her. Regarding a report from the resident about Facebook posts directed at her, it had spoken to the individual responsible. On 14 October 2023, the resident advised there were no further issues.
2. The resident had raised concerns about keeping rabbits in her garden, the removal of hedges, and installing a larger shed. It would investigate unauthorised changes to the property made by the resident, although it had not yet issued formal tenancy warnings.
3. It noted that parking disputes as well as other issues such as rabbits entering the neighbouring garden contributed to tensions. Therefore, it made a referral for shuttle mediation. It understood the mediator was conducting 1-1 sessions in preparation for mediation.
4. It concluded that it did not get it wrong and did not uphold the complaint.
The resident initially referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 March 2025. She said the landlord did not support her in respect of the behaviour of her neighbours and had taken no meaningful actions. In subsequent correspondence to us, she advised she thought there was no evidence to justify the CPW, and the landlord told lies and intimidated her at the meeting with the police. The resident also highlighted her neighbours’ shed sat over the boundary in her rear garden. While the neighbours had previously moved the boundary at the front so that her property had more land, it had now installed a second boundary. The neighbours had warned her daughter if she parked over it. The resident said the landlord accepted her gaining land at the front and losing it at the back. She wanted the boundaries drawn back to the original positions or new property deeds drawn up.

Assessment and findings

ASB reports and counter-allegations

It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes. The landlord, however, has a responsibility to take appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB.
Upon receiving reports of ASB, the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. The landlord’s ASB Policy allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures it could take either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. Embedded within the policy was the need for engagement and liaison with partner agencies, including the police. The policy specifically states, “We will, where appropriate, work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and resolve ASB in our neighbourhoods and to support our customers effectively by; sharing information,… providing support to individuals.” The Ombudsman therefore must consider whether the landlord followed its own policy in response to the reported ASB.
The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that her neighbours used to park on the street outside her property; however, they would object if she parked outside their property. Therefore, in 2024 she decided to remove the hedge at the front so she could park in her front garden area. The information on file also confirms that the neighbours, before the resident moved in, changed the boundary at the front of the properties. This allowed the previous tenant, then the resident, to use some of their land.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states “In appropriate cases, we may take action against owner-occupiers or people in other tenures to protect our tenants, their households and their visitors.” Therefore, while the landlord could not take tenancy action against the neighbours, it was still required to consider the resident’s reports against them. During March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to clarify the boundary between her and her neighbours’ property. She said they were walking on her property saying it was their land. They had also removed her child’s toys from the shared alleyway. The landlord’s legal team confirmed the alley had joint pedestrian access. However, there is no evidence that landlord conveyed this to the neighbours. It therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the dispute over use of shared alleyway.
From April 2024, the neighbours reported to the landlord the resident had removed the front boundary hedge and was parking over the pavement without a dropped kerb being there. They also reported the resident was running rabbit breeding and dog walking businesses, which was causing nuisance from noise and smells. The landlord carried out a joint visit with the police on 10 May 2024. Its record of the visit noted the resident was “aggressively” parking her cars. It also noted online evidence of the resident’s businesses as well as her keeping chickens. On 30 May 2024, the landlord visited the resident about these issues. It noted that the resident was in the process of selling a car and rehoming her chickens. The resident also confirmed her family were no longer breeding rabbits and did not bring dogs back to the property.
At the visit of 30 May 2024, the landlord advised the resident she needed its permission to run a business from her home. This was in accordance with the tenancy agreement which states the resident agrees “to use the premises for residential purposes as your only or principal home and not to operate any business at the Premises with our written permission … Permission is likely to be refused because they are likely to cause disturbance nuisance or annoyance to others in the neighbourhood.” The landlord’s visit to the resident was appropriate as it reminded her of her tenancy obligations and allow her to change her behaviour and operations in light of the neighbours’ reports.
From June 2024, the resident made further reports of her neighbours walking across her front garden. She also reported the neighbours’ shed at the rear encroached in her back garden. Therefore, she could not fully install a 6-foot fence for privacy. The neighbours made reports that the resident had cut the hedge which formed the boundary between the rear gardens. The landlord initially confirmed to the parties, on 21 August 2024, that the boundary was of joint responsibility, therefore they should not cut down hedges without discussion. This was appropriate as boundary issues were a source of dispute. It also said the resident could install a gate to prevent the neighbours walking across her front garden. However, this response was insufficient as it did not make clear exactly where a fence or gate should be installed.
The landlord visited the resident on 13 September 2024. It established there was a picket fence and an old wire fence acting as the boundary for the back gardens. It confirmed to the resident that the neighbours’ report of her cutting the boundary hedge was unjustified as the hedge was on her side of the boundary. It also accepted that her neighbours’ shed overhung her garden. The landlord subsequently spoke to the neighbours on 18 September 2024 and told them they should not walk across the resident’s driveway / front garden. It also made clear that the resident had done nothing wrong by removing the hedge at this side. When the neighbours clarified they were unhappy because the resident had removed a hedge when installing a summerhouse, the landlord noted that the summerhouse itself formed the boundary. The landlord raised the issue of the shed and noted that the neighbours said they would move it.
During the conversation with the neighbours, the landlord also confirmed to them the resident had agreed to remove posts with derogatory comments from Facebook and it was monitoring the situation. Through these actions, the landlord took steps to address the further reports of the parties. However, it missed another opportunity to say exactly where it thought the boundary lay at the front.
Also in September 2024, a neighbour reported one of the resident’s dogs had killed their cat. The resident made counter-allegations that the neighbour had made comments on lampposts and Facebook about her killing their cat. The landlord and local authority Environmental Health team jointly visited the resident on 3 October 2024 to establish how she would prevent a further incident. The landlord also addressed the resident’s counter-allegations by raising them with the neighbour following day. It highlighted the resident had paid the neighbour £100. Through these actions, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this further issue. On 14 October 2024, the resident confirmed there were no further developments.
During September and October 2024, the resident reported that the neighbours had now placed chipboard at the front to mark the boundary, after removing the original boundary several years ago. She said the neighbours had told her not to park over the boundary line and that she wished to send videos of parking issues. She asked the landlord to resolve the boundary issue by installing a fence at the front and reinstalling the boundary at the back. The landlord did not respond. This was unreasonable as the location of the boundaries and use of space remained in dispute.
Around the same time as the resident’s complaint, the landlord intended to meet with her to discuss the counter-allegations against her. It met her with the police at the police station on 28 November 2024. This was reasonable as the resident wanted the meeting somewhere neutral.
At the meeting, the police served the resident with a CPW. This said the resident should not engage in ASB, not contact her neighbours, park considerately, and confine her pets to her property. The neighbours also received a CPW. It was in line with the ASB procedure that the landlord liaised with the police and decided how best they could resolve the situation between the resident and her neighbours. By specifying actions both parties should and should not take, the landlord with the police took reasonable steps to prevent problems escalating.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident disagrees with the issuing of the CPW against her. However, ultimately, this was a decision of the police. In any event, the CPW is a preliminary measure to address ASB before formal measures. The landlord had received reports about the resident it liaised with the police which was consistent with its policy aim to work in partnership to prevent and resolve ASB.
Following the meeting, as confirmed in the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had made a referral for mediation. This was an option outlined in the ASB Policy. Mediation is often explored where there are problems between neighbours, especially where the problems arise from lifestyle differences and personality clashes. Mediation allows the parties to hear the views and experiences of the other and arrive at a formal agreement so that they can live amicably. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord initiated mediation.
In January 2025, the landlord received new reports from the neighbours, police, and Environmental Health that the resident’s rabbits were burrowing into the neighbour’s garden. They were defecating there and disturbing the neighbour’s dogs. Environmental Health stated they had spoken to the resident who agreed to remove the rabbits. They had told the neighbours they were responsible for their own pest control. It was in line with its policy of multi-agency working that the landlord consulted with the Environmental Health about the reports of rabbits. The landlord took no action against the resident about the reports. Its records suggest this was because under the CPW, the neighbours should contact the police about any breach, such as the resident not containing her animals. It may have been prudent for the landlord to have checked the resident’s intentions regarding her rabbits, in particular as it believed she had installed a bigger shed.
While the landlord responded to reports and counter-allegations by the resident and her neighbours, an underlying issue was the boundary. The landlord did not pursue the relocation of the neighbour’s shed, nor did it confirm its position in respect of the front boundary. The latter was particularly important given the resident’s reports of the neighbours restricting her parking, intimidating her by walking in front of her property, and stopping her use the alleyway.
Therefore, in summary, the landlord responded to reports and counter-allegations by the resident and her neighbours as required by its ASB Policy. It followed a multi-agency approach as outlined in the policy and facilitated warning letters. It investigated and addressed reports relating to the animals at the resident’s property, her businesses, and public comments by both parties.
However, it did not fully address boundary issues raised by the resident. This was particularly unreasonable as boundary issues were central to many of her reports. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord. We order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. In making this award we have considered the financial redress table in our Remedies Guidance. In particular we have considered the range of awards for cases of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. The award is at the lower end given the actions taken by the landlord to resolve the other aspects of the resident’s case.
We also order the landlord to confirm its position to the resident and the neighbours regarding the boundaries of the properties. This should include making clear the use of the alleyway and where parking is permissible. It should also make clear whether it will take action to change/redefine or formalise the current boundaries and explain its decision. The landlord can decide to seek expert advice before writing to the parties.

Complaint Handing

The landlord’s complaints procedure states at stage 1, “we will record and acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days and aim to respond in writing to the customer within 10 working days from acknowledgement.” Should a customer escalate the complaint it “will acknowledge that the case has been escalated to a Senior Manager for review within 5 working days of receipt. We will aim to provide a full written response within 20 working days from the date of acknowledgement.”
The landlord did not send the stage 1 response within the required timeframe. However, in her complaint, the resident asked for a face-to-face meeting. The landlord arranged the meeting for 28 November 2024, then sent the complaint response within 10 working days. Therefore, the delay in the stage 1 response was reasonable.
However, the meeting was arranged primarily so that the police could serve the CPW on the resident. The landlord’s stage 1 response, which was sent by staff member attending the meeting, focused on the resident’s behaviour and the CPW. For instance, the letter stated:
1. “During the meeting, you did not accept any responsibility for any of the issues between you and your neighbour.”
2. “I reasonably believe you hold a belief of entitlement in that you believe you can abuse your neighbours and verbally abuse them when you believe you may park three vehicles, which is a small cul-de-sac and allow your animals connected with your various business to cause a nuisance.”
3. “We have a situation, I believe, that is becoming worse between you and your neighbours because you believe you have the right to drive over the pavement which has not been lowered for the purposes of parking three vehicles.”
The resident’s complaint raised concerns about her neighbours’ behaviour which the landlord did not acknowledge or address. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, “At each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must a) deal with complaints on their merits, act independently, and have an open mind …d) consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.” The Code also states, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in the stage 1 complaint response and therefore did not follow the Code.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman she was unhappy about the staff member’s conduct at the meeting. In fact, he noted in the stage 1 response the resident’s claim he “was smirking and being rude”. The resident has sent the Ombudsman a video of the meeting. However, there is no volume, and faces have been blurred so we can make no comment about the behaviour of participants.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 2 January 2025, although she did not explain why in her message. The Code states “Residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.” It was therefore appropriate that the landlord escalated the complaint.
However, the landlord was then required to establish why the resident escalated the complaint and how it could resolve the complaint. The landlord did not do so before sending the stage 2 response, again failing to meet the Code. As a result, it failed to identify unresolved issues, such as those the resident has expressed to the Ombudsman. This included her views about a lack of support following her reports and the behaviour of the staff member who handled her stage 1 complaint. The landlord sent the stage 2 response within the required timeframe. However, in doing so, it did not take adequate steps to identify and resolve substantive issues of complaint.
In summary, the landlord at both stages did not identify and address issues that formed the resident’s complaint. This was not consistent with the requirements of the Code. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
We award the resident £100 compensation. In making this award we have considered the financial redress table in our Remedies Guidance. In particular we have considered the range of awards for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s ASB reports about her neighbours and counter-allegations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in the handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. pay the resident £300 compensation comprising:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her ASB case.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
2. Confirm in writing its position to the resident and the neighbours regarding the boundaries of the properties. This should include making clear the use of the alleyway and where parking is permissible. It should also make clear whether it will take action to change/redefine or formalise the current boundaries and explain its decision. The landlord can seek expert advice before writing to the parties.