Your Housing Group Limited (202449495)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property, a 2-bedroom first floor flat, since 1 June 2022. The resident has mobility issues and heart failure. It is evident there has been a neighbour dispute ongoing since 2023. The ASB reported includes rubbish being kicked in front of the property and the use of weedkiller on outdoor areas. The resident enquired about a walk-in shower with the landlord in 2024 due to her mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request to move.
   2. Request for bathroom adaptations.
   3. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB)

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. We also found there was service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord tried to source alternate accommodation in the localities the resident had given as preference, and it is acknowledged that there was some level of disagreement what constituted a reasonable offer based on the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s poor records mean it has failed to demonstrate that it effectively managed the resident’s expectations on her request to move.
6. The landlord acted appropriately, followed its policy, and signposted the resident accordingly. There was no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s request for adaptations up to the point it provided its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord acted generally in accordance with its policy; it followed up on its commitments and was sympathetic to the situation by exercising reasonable discretion and offering a practical solution to alleviate the neighbour dispute.
8. The landlord’s complaint management could have been better; it offered appropriate redress at its initial stage and acted in line with the dispute resolution principles. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and its records do not detail any communications back to the resident during this time, which was not reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

9. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds.
10. While the resident’s concerns and the nature of his complaint are noted, the Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.

What we have looked at

11. For clarity, we have only looked at the landlord’s actions in relation to its internal transfer options provided to the resident. Any offers made from the local authority or housing scheme have not been considered for the reasons above.
12. The landlord has not provided records to demonstrate that the resident had requested to move prior to registering a complaint. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord stated the resident had been declined a move previously due to insufficient information, this has meant we are unable to comment on whether the landlord acted in a reasonable manner in response to the resident’s previous request to move. Nevertheless, it indicates a possible record keeping failure.
13. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged any distress caused by this and collected relevant supporting documents from the resident to authorise a management move. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and demonstrates it was proactive in seeking a resolution to the resident’s complaint.
14. The landlord’s allocations and lettings procedure says those accepted for a management are permitted 3 reasonable offers of accommodation. Its procedure acknowledges that a home might not fulfil all the expectations of a customer, but it should not work against the needs of a household. Its access to housing policy says a customer would normally stay on the management move waiting list for 16 weeks subject to availability by area, it says it may extend this period if it agrees a suitable home has not become available.
15. The landlord’s internal records indicate the management move referral was approved on 22 May 2025. Following its approval, the landlord offered the resident an alternate property in one of her preferred areas on 9 June 2025. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated this was refused due to a change in preference of area as the resident wanted to be closer to her daughter. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what discussions took place around this offer, the resident has advised the Ombudsman the property was not in a practical location, so she had to refuse the property.
16. To summarise, it is evident that the landlord tried to source alternate accommodation in the localities the resident had given as preference, and it is acknowledged that there was some level of disagreement what constituted a reasonable offer based on the resident’s circumstances. The landlord did not have a communication plan to keep the resident up to date with its actions and its poor records mean it has failed to demonstrate that it effectively managed the resident’s expectations on her request to move or that any offers made were reasonable.  For this reason, a finding of service failure is made.

What we have not looked at

17. The Ombudsman can only assess its actions in relation to landlords and their housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. Our remit does not extend to considering the actions of local authority departments or functions. As such, we have not assessed the actions of the local authority’s occupational health therapist (OT), but they will be referred to within the report, for context.
18. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the suitability or reasonableness of the decision by the OT. If the resident remains unhappy about these, it would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to determine.

What we have looked at

19. The landlord’s adaptations policy says the landlord will fund minor adaptations up to the cost of £1500, this includes grab rails. It says it will review each request on an individual basis, but it must be reasonable and practicable. The policy says major adaptations are works with an estimated cost of more than £1500 and these will be referred or signposted to the local authority to request an OT assessment. A walk-in shower is referred to as a major adaptation. Its policy says the landlord will only accept requests for major adaptations following an OT assessment.
20. It is evident the resident contacted the landlord about a wet room in June 2024. It is not clear when the resident was assessed and it may be that the adaptations were not possible for structural and/or other reasons due to the dimensions and layout of the property or may have been cost prohibitive. It is not evident that any recommendations for adaptations were passed onto the landlord from the OT to consider. The landlord followed its policy in signposting the resident to an OT assessment. In its stage 1 response, the landlord also signposted the resident to the local authority if she wished to challenge the decision by the OT. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
21.  As well as major adaptations, there is evidence smaller works such as grab rails and a shower seat were considered as an interim measure by the landlord. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and demonstrates it considered what it could do for the resident. This was further demonstrated in its stage 2 response where it offered to refer the resident’s case to an adaptations panel for it to be reviewed. It is evident the landlord referred the resident’s case to the panel; however, it is not evident that any outcome was communicated back to the resident.
22. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s request for adaptations to the bathroom. It followed its policy and signposted the resident accordingly. The above demonstrates that there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s request for adaptations up to the point it provided its stage 2 response.

23. Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case
24. Although it is noted there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from March 2024 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
25. When a landlord receives reports of antisocial behaviour, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to any witnesses, reviewing incident diaries, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of antisocial behaviour or a tenancy breach can be limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with good industry practice when responding to any reports.
26. In May 2024, the resident had reported concerns her neighbour used weedkiller on his garden area which she alleged to have made her dog poorly, and she felt she had to take her own plants inside for periods. It is evident the landlord visited both the neighbour and the resident in July 2024 in response to the reports. Following its visits, the landlord proposed a solution of installing a small fence to separate the front garden areas. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord in trying to resolve the neighbour dispute.
27. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had investigated the reports of the neighbour using weedkiller previously and there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations and no further action was deemed possible. It confirmed there to be a current case open, which was again due to reports of the use of weedkiller and the neighbour knocking on their ceiling, under the resident’s property, during the night. It said it would send diary sheets for completion and follow up with the resident to review the evidence collected. It is evident that the landlord did follow up with the resident as it had said it would and it advised the resident without any further evidence provided it could not progress the case. It was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, for the landlord to advise the resident to provide evidence and that it would not keep the case open indefinitely.
28. The landlord demonstrated it would be willing to try alternate methods to help alleviate the situation between the neighbours by the offer of installing a small fence to section the front garden area between the neighbouring properties. It is understandable that the landlord put installing the fence on hold as the resident was exploring options to move.
29. The Ombudsman has sympathy with the resident that she has reported ASB since 2023, however there is no evidence to support the landlord’s actions equate to maladministration or were excessively unreasonable. The above demonstrates the landlord acted generally in accordance with its policies; followed up on its commitments and was sympathetic to the situation by exercising reasonable discretion and offering a practical solution.

30. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process, its policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
31. The landlord logged a complaint following receipt of an email from the Ombudsman on 31 March 2025, which the landlord acknowledged on this day. A response was due on the 14 April 2025, but the landlord did not provide its initial response until 17 April 2025, although this was not a significant delay, it was outside of its policy timescale. There is no record to show the resident was communicated to about this delay which was not reasonable and not in line with its policy. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay in its stage 1 response, apologised, and offered £50 compensation in recognition of its failing.
32. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 22 April 2025 and 21 May 2025 to escalate her complaint, it is not evident the landlord did so or took pro-active action to establish the resident’s prolonged dissatisfaction. It acknowledged her stage 2 request on 22 May 2025. Once acknowledged, the landlord provided its response within the timescales of its policy.
33. Overall, the landlord’s complaint management could have been better, it is noted that it offered appropriate redress at its initial stage and acted in line with the dispute resolution principles. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and its records do not detail any communications back to the resident during this time, which was not reasonable and could have been avoided. For this reason, a finding of service failure has been made.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that is fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate its communications with the resident. This indicates more effective record keeping is needed.