Hyde Housing Association Limited (202314832)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom ground-floor maisonette that the resident has occupied since 2009. The resident contacted her local MP in June 2023 about noise from ball games being played in the communal courtyard. She also inquired about installing a 6-foot fence to her private patio area.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord did not demonstrate a proactive approach, and its communication with the resident was poor, resulting in a failure to manage her expectations about the action it could take.

Complaint handling

5. Although the landlord did not fully follow its complaints policy—particularly by failing to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation—it took reasonable action at stage 1 by offering compensation for delays.

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.

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 did not investigate

6. We acknowledge that ASB cases can be difficult for a landlord to resolve, especially when there is limited evidence. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party was responsible. Instead it is for us to determine whether, in its response to reports of ASB, the landlord followed its relevant policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
7. The resident said that she had been experiencing ASB over a 14-year period. While we do not dispute this, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise unresolved complaints with us in a timely manner so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed promptly. As issues become historical, evidence become difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint.
8. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s website says that “although some types of behaviour can be annoying, children playing in the street or communal areas (unless they are causing damage) is not antisocial behaviour”.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy says that when considering what action to take to tackle ASB, the case officer must consider what is reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate, and consider other agencies’ resources and actions available. In most cases, the landlord will pursue some form of non-legal action in the first stages. This may include warning letters, parenting agreements, good neighbour agreements, and environment and security assessments.
11. The evidence shows that the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord around June 2023. Internal case notes dated 19 June 2023 say that the landlord had “already visited the resident in relation to this”. However, at this point it is unclear what issues were being reported. It is not until the landlord’s correspondence to the MP on 28 June 2023 that it became clear the resident had been reporting noise from ball games being played in the communal courtyard. In its correspondence, the landlord advised that the resident would need to request permission to install a 6‑foot fence to enclose her patio area. It also noted that letters had been sent to all residents regarding the issue, and suggested that the MP advise the resident to contact the landlord if she wished to discuss the matter further.
12. Sending letters to all residents was an acceptable initial step when dealing with noise in the communal area. It demonstrated an attempt to remind everyone of expectations and aligned with the landlord’s ASB policy to take non-legal action in the first instance. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to contact the resident directly, rather than placing the onus on her to make contact. This was particularly important given that she had raised noise concerns and expressed dissatisfaction.
13. On 7 August 2023 the local MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, again raising her concerns about noise from the communal garden. The MP emphasised that, despite the signage, football continued to be played and balls were hitting the resident’s windows. It was also highlighted that other neighbours had raised similar concerns. The landlord responded to the MP on 10 August 2023, stating that it would send a letter to residents asking them to identify those responsible for the noise. It also confirmed that it did not currently have any information that would enable it to take tenancy enforcement action.
14. The MP contacted the landlord again on 8 October 2023 to raise further concerns about people playing football in the communal garden. The landlord then contacted the resident on 12 October 2023, at which point she requested to make a formal complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident had not reported any ASB issues within the previous 6 months and did not uphold the complaint. This is concerning, as the resident had raised noise issues via her MP during this period. If the landlord did not consider this type of noise to fall under its ASB policy, it should have written to the resident to clarify this and manage her expectations from the outset.
15. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2023. She disputed the landlord’s statement that she had not reported any ASB issues in the previous 6 months and set out several dates on which she said she had raised concerns. She explained that these reports had been made both directly and through her MP, and therefore should have been acknowledged and recorded by the landlord.
16. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it reviewed the resident’s request to escalate her complaint but decided not to change its original decision. It stated that it had already considered all the information provided, spoken with relevant staff, and followed its policies and procedures. In addition, it said that it could only act on ASB reports when given specific details about the individuals involved.
17. The resident had disputed the landlord’s claim that she had not reported ASB and provided dates of contact, including approaches made via her MP. The stage 2 reply was vague and did not specifically address these dates or explain why they were not logged as an ASB case. Even if the landlord considered no action could be taken, addressing the issue in its response would have demonstrated it was taking the complaint seriously and had completed a thorough investigation.
18. Overall, although the landlord took some appropriate early steps—such as sending letters to residents and reminding them of expected behaviour—it did not follow through in a way that demonstrated a consistent or proactive approach. Once the landlord became aware, through repeated MP contact, that the resident was experiencing ongoing disturbance, it should have contacted her directly, clarified its position, and properly assessed the impact of the issue. Instead, it placed the responsibility on the resident to make contact, which was inappropriate given her repeated expressions of concern and dissatisfaction.
19. The landlord’s record keeping and case management also fell short. While the resident’s MP raised the matter several times between June and October 2023, the landlord later stated there had been no ASB reports in the previous 6 months, without addressing these earlier contacts or explaining why they were not logged. This inconsistency suggests that the landlord did not fully or accurately record the information it received, which undermined the fairness of its stage 1 decision.
20. At stage 2, the landlord did not provide a sufficiently thorough response. It reiterated its original position without addressing the specific dates of contact the resident had highlighted, nor did it explain why these had not been treated as ASB reports. The response also failed to address the resident’s wider concerns about noise, privacy, and wellbeing. Even if the landlord ultimately considered that the behaviour did not meet its ASB threshold, it should have communicated this clearly and demonstrated that it had considered all aspects of the complaint.
21. In summary, while some early actions were appropriate, the landlord did not act reasonably overall. Its communication with the resident did not demonstrate a fair, proportionate, or customer‑focused approach, resulting in missed opportunities to address her concerns and manage her expectations effectively. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will then be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code.
23. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident on 12 October 2024. However, it is unclear when the complaint was initially made. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged a delay in responding and offered the resident £50 in compensation. This was a reasonable and resolution‑focused approach aimed at putting things right. The response was ultimately sent within 10 working days of the complaint being raised.
24. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 1 November 2023. The landlord does not appear to have acknowledged this request, which is contrary to its policy. The stage 2 response was issued 21 working days later, which is not considered an unreasonable delay or one that would have adversely affected the resident.
25. Overall, while the landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy—specifically in failing to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request—it nevertheless took reasonable steps to address delays it identified at stage 1 by offering compensation. In addition, it issued both stage 1 and stage 2 responses within timeframes that were not unreasonable.

Learning

26. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate at times, which meant it was unable to fully address the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

28. The landlord should review how it applies its complaints policy to ensure it issues responses within the required timescales. In doing so, it may find it helpful to refer to our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord may also wish to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance at our workshop on complaint handling.