Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202507807)

Decision
Case ID	202507807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Habinteg Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat that the resident has occupied since 2002 following a deed of assignment. A deed of assignment is a legal document that transfers a tenancy from one person to another, including all the existing tenant’s rights and obligations to the new tenant. The resident reported incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB), which included dumped rubbish and smoking in the communal areas and harassment from neighbours.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
   3. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies when addressing the resident’s concerns. It took proportionate steps to manage issues around rubbish, ASB, and smoking in communal areas, demonstrating a prompt and reasonable response throughout.

Staff conduct

5. The landlord demonstrated that it appropriately investigated the reports, providing evidence to support its decision and reminding the resident of relevant tenancy obligations.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord appropriately communicated its need for an extension at both stages and responded in line with the revised timescale.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 October 2024	The landlord sent the resident a warning letter regarding disposal of rubbish in the communal hallway.
15 October 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. She said that: The landlord’s staff were intimidating and harassing her. She wanted all communication with the landlord to be in writing only. The landlord had failed to put up ‘no smoking’ signs and send letters to all residents regarding smoking in the communal gate area. The landlord’s contractor had dumped rubbish in her garden. The landlord’s staff were standing outside her door every Monday at 9am. The resident provided additional comments the following day regarding her belief that the landlord was a racist organisation.
14 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, detailing the actions it had taken. These included interviewing staff, reviewing staff calendars, inspecting the area where the rubbish was dumped, and installing ‘no smoking’ signs. The complaint was not upheld.
12 December 2024	The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She stated that the landlord had not addressed her concerns through its complaints process and was attempting to gain ‘fake access’ to her property under the guise of a hypothetical emergency. The resident said that she wanted copies of CCTV and that her neighbours were behaving abusively towards her. She further stated that it was the landlord’s responsibility to remove rubbish from the communal hallway, accused it of lying about permitting the contractor to leave rubbish in her garden, and expressed dissatisfaction that her contact number had been shared with the contractor when arranging access.
31 January 2025	The landlord carried out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s reports of the neighbours being abusive towards her. On 3 February 2025 it sent an action plan to the resident.
18 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, outlining the action it had taken. This included attempting to access CCTV, seeking legal advice regarding the resident leaving rubbish in the communal hallway, and requesting the resident provide dates and times where residents had been smoking at the gated area. It did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said that her complaint had not been fully addressed by the landlord. She told us she wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s lack of action to protect her from harassment from her neighbours.

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.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbour dispute was responsible. 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.
8. The resident raised concerns with us that the landlord treated her differently and discriminated against her. While it is not within our remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, we will review the landlord’s overall handling of the case, including its response to the resident’s concerns.
9. In relation to staff conduct, our role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen. Rather, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
10. We will not investigate events before 30 September 2024 as we have previously investigated these matters under case reference 202442875.

What we did investigate

11. The landlord’s ASB policy says its approach to ASB reports is to take reasonable, proportionate action by completing a risk assessment with the reporting party, agreeing on an action plan, and conducting an investigation. Cases are closed once agreed actions are completed. The reporting party is expected to cooperate by keeping appointments, recording incidents, and engaging in early interventions; otherwise, further action may not be possible. The landlord may use measures such as warning interviews, formal warnings, and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts to give the alleged perpetrator an opportunity to change their behaviour.
12. The policy then categorises ASB into 3 groups. Category A includes serious cases such as threats or violence; Category B covers issues like noise nuisance; and Category C relates to reports such as non-offensive graffiti or dumped rubbish. In each case a risk assessment is carried out.
13. The tenancy conditions applicable to the resident as a result of the deed of assignment say that tenants must:
    1. Keep gardens included in the letting in good order. In the case of the resident’s property, there are no gardens included in the letting.
    2. Allow the landlord or its contractors access at all reasonable times of the day to inspect the premises. The landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice, but immediate access may be required in an emergency.
    3. Deposit rubbish in the designated bin stores or designated areas.

Rubbish in the communal areas

14. On 4 October 2024 the landlord issued a warning letter to the resident regarding rubbish bags left in the communal hallway. This was a proportionate response to information it had received in line with its ASB policy. The tenancy agreement states that rubbish must be disposed of in designated bin stores, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of tenancy, for which the landlord sent a warning letter.
15. On 15 October 2024 the resident submitted a complaint, stating she had lacked bin store access for nearly 3 years and believed the landlord was responsible for removing the rubbish. We would expect the resident to raise the issue of access within a reasonable time after discovering the problem. The evidence shows that the resident was provided with a new key fob on 18 November 2024, which was an appropriate response to ensure she had access.
16. The resident also reported that contractors had left rubbish outside her bedroom window. The landlord inspected the area on 18 October 2024, took photographs, and confirmed the rubbish had been cleared.
17. In its stage 1 response of 11 November 2024 the landlord explained that it had issued the resident a warning letter for leaving rubbish in the communal hallway, as this posed a health and safety risk. It also confirmed that the matter had been referred to the council’s environmental health team for further consideration.
18. Regarding the contractors dumping rubbish outside the resident’s window, the landlord stated that it had visited the area, spoken with the contractors, and reminded them to be mindful when disposing of waste. This was an appropriate response, as the landlord promptly investigated the issue and took steps to prevent it from recurring.
19. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 December 2024, disputing the enforceability of the tenancy agreement and deed of assignment. She maintained that it was the landlord’s responsibility to remove rubbish from the communal hallway. However, the deed of assignment clearly transferred the tenancy conditions, meaning the responsibility for disposing of rubbish appropriately lies with the resident.
20. The resident also said that the landlord acted dishonestly when speaking to the contractors and claimed it instructed them to leave rubbish outside her window to harass her. We have seen no evidence to support this allegation. We note that on 13 December 2024 the resident provided the landlord with a document containing photos dated 10 and 16 October 2024, which showed building rubbish outside her bedroom window. The landlord evidenced that its inspection on 18 October 2024 found no rubbish present. This demonstrated that it had been removed promptly, within 3 working days of the resident’s report.
21. On 20 December 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that her fob key provided access to the bin stores. A newly reprogrammed key was issued to her on 30 December 2024. The landlord provided evidence that it tested the key and that the fob was used to access the bin stores throughout December 2024. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
22. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policies. It issued a warning letter for rubbish left in communal areas, which was proportionate. Additionally, it clarified bin store access, provided a new fob, and promptly investigated reports of contractor rubbish.

Neighbour harassment

23. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that the landlord had failed to address harassment from a neighbour. The landlord responded, explaining that this issue had already been dealt with as part of a previous complaint, which was an appropriate approach. In her stage 2 complaint dated 12 December 2024, the resident raised further concerns about harassment from another neighbour. We have reviewed a diary of events provided by the resident, although it is unclear when this was shared with the landlord, as the final entry was dated 12 December 2024. These entries included noise from banging, slamming doors and loud music.
24. On 13 January 2025 the landlord imposed a restriction on the resident’s contact with its staff. The restriction outlined that the resident could continue to report any issues of ASB every 2 weeks via a dedicated email address. This approach is permitted under the landlord’s complaints policy, which allows for contact limitations in certain circumstances. Although this investigation does not assess the appropriateness of that decision, it is relevant to note that the resident retained a channel to report the ASB concerns she said she was experiencing.
25. On 31 January 2025, following the resident’s reports of further concerns of harassment from another neighbour, the landlord opened a new ASB case and carried out a risk assessment. Case notes indicated that this was completed by the ASB officer due to a lack of direct contact from the resident. Conducting a risk assessment was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy, which requires such assessments for all categories of ASB. This step was particularly important in this instance, given the nature of the resident’s reports. The landlord also completed an action plan on 3 February 2025, which was consistent with its ASB policy.
26. In its stage 2 response dated 18 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged the new reports of harassment made by the resident and confirmed that it was taking these reports seriously. It explained that, as the reports concerned a different neighbour, it would investigate the matter in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord assured the resident that she would receive a response once the investigation was complete. Furthermore, it advised that if she remained dissatisfied after the outcome, she could escalate the matter by raising a formal complaint. This approach was reasonable and consistent with its ASB policy.
27. Between January and April 2025, there were no further reports from the resident regarding harassment from the neighbours. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 April 2025 advising that it was going to close the ASB case, as it said there had been no further incidents reported, and it would reopen the case should further incidents occur. This was an appropriate response in circumstances where the landlord lacked the necessary evidence to progress matters.
28. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and related concerns was reasonable. Upon becoming aware of new issues involving a different neighbour, it opened a new ASB case. It carried out a risk assessment and developed an action plan, both of which were in line with the procedures set out in its ASB policy. These steps demonstrate that the landlord acted appropriately and followed its established processes for managing ASB reports.

Smoking in the communal areas

29. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised concerns about smoking in the communal gated area. She believed the landlord had permitted neighbours to smoke there and had failed to install ‘no smoking’ signs or issue reminder letters to residents. In its response, the landlord stated that it had spoken with staff and found no evidence that such permission had been granted. It further explained that neighbours had been reminded of the appropriate areas for smoking and that ‘no smoking’ signs were installed at the main entrance doors and corridors in September 2023.
30. Internal correspondence confirms that signs were installed in 2023, but this was not in the area detailed in the resident’s complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord has evidenced it sent warning letters to residents reminding them to smoke a sufficient distance away so as not to affect others. It also removed the smoking bins from the gated entrance to discourage smoking in that area. Based on photographs submitted by the resident, her property appears to be some distance from the gated area, meaning the impact on her enjoyment of the property would likely have been minimal.
31. The landlord’s response effectively addressed the resident’s concerns. Evidence shows that it engaged with the neighbour regarding the reported issue and took practical steps to discourage smoking in the communal area.

Conclusion

32. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s concerns were appropriate and consistent with its policies and procedures. It took proportionate steps to address issues relating to rubbish in communal areas by issuing a warning letter, clarifying bin store access, and promptly investigating reports of contractor waste. In relation to ASB, the landlord acted reasonably by opening a new ASB case when further issues arose, completing a risk assessment, and implementing an action plan in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, the landlord engaged with the neighbour regarding smoking concerns and introduced practical measures, such as removing smoking bins and reinforcing the smoking policy, to discourage smoking in communal spaces. These actions demonstrate that the landlord responded promptly, followed its established processes, and took reasonable steps to manage the matters raised by the resident.

Complaint	Concerns regarding staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

33. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported that on 18 September 2024 staff members had knocked on her front door and shouted, which she perceived as intimidation and harassment. She requested that all future communication from the landlord be in writing. Additionally, she said that staff were standing outside her flat door every Monday morning. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it had spoken with staff and contractors and reviewed their calendars to verify attendance on the date in question. Evidence from diary entries confirmed that staff were not in the vicinity on that day. The landlord’s response was appropriate, as it investigated the matter thoroughly and established that its staff had not been present.
34. In response to the resident’s request for all communication to be in writing, the landlord stated that it would endeavour to comply. However, it explained that there may be circumstances—such as emergencies—where visits were necessary. In such cases, it said it would confirm the visit in writing beforehand. The landlord also clarified that weekly checks on the fire alarm system and other health and safety inspections required staff to attend the building regularly. It said there was no evidence to suggest that staff were present for any reason other than carrying out routine duties. The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated it had thoroughly investigated the matter.
35. In her escalation request, the resident stated that she had lived in the property since 2002 and that no emergencies had occurred during that time. She felt the landlord was using emergencies as an excuse to gain “fake access” to her property. She also requested CCTV footage to show what staff members were doing outside her flat.
36. The landlord responded that CCTV footage was unavailable because recordings were overwritten after 4 weeks. It added that it was exploring options to increase the size of the hard drive to retain footage for longer periods. This response was resolution-focused and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and was proactive in seeking a practical solution.
37. The landlord further explained that it had reviewed staff calendar entries again, which confirmed they were engaged in other duties at the time of the said incident. We have reviewed this evidence and are satisfied that this was accurate. The landlord reiterated that there may be occasions when emergency access was required, and stated that it had found no evidence to support the resident’s claim that it was attempting to gain “fake access” to her property.
38. As outlined earlier in this report, the tenancy agreement requires residents to allow the landlord or its contractors access at all reasonable times to inspect the premises. While the landlord aims to provide at least 24 hours’ notice, immediate access may be necessary in emergencies. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable, and it clearly set out the resident’s responsibilities under her tenancy obligations.
39. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s allegations, providing evidence to challenge the reports, and reiterating tenancy obligations. Its response was proportionate and transparent, helping to clarify expectations and reduce the potential for future misunderstandings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

40. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response to be issued, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. It says that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 20 days if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to complainants.
41. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days, in line with its policy timescale. On 22 October 2024 it informed the resident that it required a 10-working-day extension to issue its response and confirmed that the response would be provided by 14 November 2024. This was consistent with its complaints policy, and the stage 1 response was provided on 14 November 2024 as stated.
42. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 12 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request one working day outside of its policy timescale, but this is not considered an unreasonable delay.
43. On 13 January 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it required an extension of 20 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that the revised response date would be 18 February 2025. This extension request was made and communicated before the original stage 2 deadline, which was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy allowing for extensions where necessary.
44. The landlord subsequently provided its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025, consistent with the revised timescale it had communicated to the resident.
45. The landlord acted appropriately by requesting an extension before the original stage 2 complaint deadline expired. It clearly communicated the need for additional time and provided the resident with an updated timescale for its response. This proactive approach helped manage the resident’s expectations and demonstrated transparency in the complaint-handling process.

Learning

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

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord demonstrated good record-keeping practices by reviewing staff calendars and diary entries to verify attendance, supporting its investigation into the resident’s concerns.

Communication

48. The landlord appropriately communicated its need for an extension before the original stage 2 deadline. It kept the resident informed of the revised timescale which helped manage expectations.