Home Group Limited (202503748)

Decision
Case ID	202503748
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in the 2-bedroom property with his wife and 2 children. He has mental and physical health conditions. At the time of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB), the resident’s daughter was awaiting a neurodiversity assessment.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

While the landlord dealt with most of the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately, and in line with its policies, there were several service failures. When combined, these amount to maladministration.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the specific failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £250. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.	No later than 17 December 2025
3	Take specific action The landlord must review the resident’s CCTV permission in line with its current policy and confirm it in writing, even if there is no change.	No later than 17 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £35 previously awarded for complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 July 2024 to 20 February 2025	The resident reported ASB of drug use, noise disturbance, littering, intimidation and suspected drug dealing by a neighbour. He provided CCTV and video doorbell evidence that the landlord received on 18 February 2025. However, it later asked him to apply for retrospective permission for the CCTV installation. It said it did not comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as it recorded images beyond his front garden.
21 February to 10 March 2025	The resident complained about ASB by 2 neighbours. He said: He was unhappy with how the landlord had handled his reports since July 2024. He had recently attended the police station suicidal and felt the landlord had dismissed the impact of the ASB on his family. He disagreed his CCTV breached GDPR but he had removed it anyway. He believed this would make him a target for the alleged perpetrators and asked for alternative accommodation and safeguarding measures. He wanted the landlord to suspend his ASB case while it dealt with his complaint for fear of making matters worse. However, he also reported further ASB, including an allegation of affray on 3 March 2025. He asked the landlord to investigate and provided an audio recording which he believed evidenced a death threat.
14 March 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: Most of the reported incidents were criminal matters; except for noise and it could not act on harassment or drug use without evidence. It had considered the audio recording but it did not show a direct threat to the resident. It appeared to capture a private conversation between visitors at the neighbouring property. It contacted the police after the incident of 3 March 2025 and they confirmed there was no direct threat to the resident. It had followed ASB procedures and offered support. Police reports did not match the behaviour reported by the resident. He should report future incidents and it would continue working with the police and carry out regular daytime street walks. It attached an extract of its CCTV policy and said it was considering retrospective permission for his installation. It encouraged him to keep bidding for properties (with the local authority lettings scheme) and offered support with this. It invited further evidence and advised him to contact the police if he believed his family were in danger.
18 and 23 March 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He described the effect of ongoing ASB on his family and said: He acknowledged some behaviour was criminal but expected the landlord to pursue a tenancy breach. He reiterated his request to suspend the ASB case but asked the landlord to investigate potential crimes. These included potential breaches of bail by visitors and residents of neighbouring properties. The landlord failed to address his CCTV complaint and the removal had worsened ASB, left him vulnerable, and increased drug dealing. The landlord had ignored evidence and dismissed evidence of noise and foul language. It did not deliver noise and smell diaries as promised. He disagreed that the landlord was supportive and had been working with the police. He had evidence that contradicted the landlord’s claim there were no police records. The landlord had not considered his medical grounds when assessing his housing transfer. He asked it to contact him urgently to discuss his application. He later asked the landlord to install metal bars for fear of assault.
28 April 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its stage 1 position. It added that it: Had no evidence to prove the ASB reported in July 2024. Reported drug use and ASB to the police and met with them on 9 April 2025, when they discussed the resident’s case at length. It said the police had no evidence to act against the alleged perpetrator and no concerns about the street in general. Had done street walks but they did not corroborate the resident’s allegations. Had limited ability to intervene without evidence to corroborate allegations of noise but it had asked the council to remove the rubbish. Declined the resident’s request to install steel bars due to building safety concerns and because police data did not support it. Apologised for any impact on the resident and said it took his concerns seriously and was monitoring the situation. It signposted him to its insurers for any personal injury claim. Said it had consented to his CCTV installation with conditions that applied to all residents. It would clarify his concerns about camera angles (and GDPR). Said it could not support a management move on the grounds of severe harassment but had supported and advised him on continuing to bid on other properties. It suggested applying for a mutual exchange (MEX) and offered to discuss this with him. Invited him to a joint meeting with the police and apologised for the delay replying to the stage 2 complaint. It awarded £35 for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident described the impact of ASB and said it affected his daughter’s mental health. He said his family live in constant fear and barricade doors and abandon the garden. He said his daughters were too scared to sleep or play outside. He asked the landlord to (amongst other things): Update its CCTV policy to align with GDPR and review his permission. Take tenancy enforcement action against his neighbours and refer safeguarding concerns to the council. Offer a reasonable adjustment for mental health support or alternative security such as window locks instead of steel bars.

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

It is not our role to establish the validity of the resident’s ASB reports. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of them. The resident has referenced different regulations and legislation that he believes are relevant to his complaints. The primary focus of our assessment is on how the landlord applied its own policies and procedures. However, we do comment if we find the landlord did not show due regard to associated legislation.
The landlord’s ASB policy at the time of the complaint defined ASB as conduct causing harassment, alarm or distress. It further described harassment as causing alarm or distress or putting a person in fear of violence. It is positive the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of July 2024 as ASB. It offered to speak to the alleged perpetrators but took no further action. This was appropriate as the resident did not want to pursue the ASB case. The landlord advised him to report any further incidents and consider supporting a formal ASB case.
We have not seen evidence of further reports of ASB until 13 January 2025. The landlord visited the resident on 20 January 2025 and agreed to meet the alleged perpetrator. It said it would consider issuing diary sheets and a noise application following the visit. This was appropriate. The visit may have resolved ASB and avoided the need for the resident to spend time gathering evidence.
The landlord risk assessed the situation, in line with its policy legal duty of assessing the risk of harm and escalation of ASB. It decided the ASB was of medium risk. It also completed an action plan and agreed to update the resident weekly. The alleged perpetrator agreed actions to resolve ASB on 29 January 2025. However, the following day the resident reported noise nuisance and alleged that visitors to the neighbouring property were selling drugs and he feared neighbours would kill him and his family.
The landlord called the resident the same day and confirmed it had visited the alleged perpetrators, who denied ASB. It explained it had an evidence based approach and had found no evidence of drug taking. It reassured him it worked closely with the police and advised him to continue reporting incidents to them as drug dealing was a criminal offence. This was appropriate. The police were the most appropriate authority to investigate crimes and could respond to any immediate threat to the resident’s family.
It is positive the landlord also acknowledged its role in addressing the ASB. It carried out 12 street walks between its stage 1 and 2 responses, showing it took the resident’s concerns seriously. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it can use professional witnesses to help validate ASB. By sending staff to visit the neighbourhood, the landlord could assess the real time situation and act as a witness if it had found evidence to support the resident’s reports.
However, we have not seen that the landlord acted on the resident’s reports of noise. Its ASB policy says it will use noise applications to resolve cases quickly. There is no record of it providing this technology or diary sheets as previously discussed. It should have provided these tools in line with its ASB policy and this was a failure in service.
The ASB policy also says it will work with other organisations such as the council to resolve ASB. However, we have not seen that it considered contacting the Environmental Health Team (EHT) to address the resident’s reports of parties, loud music or littering, or that it signposted him to that service. This was a further failure. The EHT may have been able to act and address these issues if the landlord was unable to.
We would not expect the landlord to address reports of unauthorised occupancy or breaches of bail under its ASB policy as these situations would not be defined as ASB. However, if the people who lived in the neighbouring property (or visited) were causing harassment, alarm or distress, it could take ASB action and records show it did where appropriate.
The landlord went on to explain its limited role in tackling drug dealing and that it would need evidence to pursue tenancy enforcement action through the court. This was appropriate. A tenancy is a legal agreement and a court would not support any enforcement action without admissible evidence that the tenant had breached their agreement.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints that it had dismissed CCTV and video doorbell evidence in its complaint responses. We know the landlord viewed the footage, leading it to question its compliance with GDPR. However, we have not seen records of what it showed or whether it was of any evidential value. The landlord should have kept a record of this and explained to the resident why it had not used it to address ASB.
However, the effect of this was minimal as, shortly after, the resident asked the landlord not to use any of his ASB reports to build a case against the alleged perpetrators. This was in addition to his request for the ASB case to be suspended. Therefore, the landlord was limited in how it could deal with ASB. In the absence of any corroborating evidence we understand why it could not justify other options available to it such as mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements and warnings to resolve any ASB.
Despite this, the landlord continued to work with the police in line with its ASB policy. The police confirmed attending a neighbouring property on 3 March 2025 but said the incident did not involve the resident. We have not seen a record of the meeting of 9 April 2025 but records show they told the landlord there were no other reports of ASB (from those other than the resident) and offered to carry out a letter drop to encourage reporting.
They also said their data did not reflect the level of ASB claimed. However, the landlord’s communication of this comment in its complaint responses was ambiguous and led the resident to believe the police said he had not reported any ASB. This was not a true reflection of the information provided and frustrated the resident.
The landlord’s decision to close the ASB case on 20 March 2025 was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. This says it can close a case when there is no further action or the parties involved are unwilling to engage. It says it will always let the parties involved know when it has decided to close a case and the reason for this. The landlord told the resident it was closing the case and confirmed he knew how to open a new one.
The landlord’s allocations policy says it can use management moves to offer alternative accommodation when a resident’s life is at immediate risk or they cannot enter their home for safeguarding concerns. We have not seen evidence to show the resident met these criteria. Therefore, the landlord helped him to apply for alternative accommodation under the local authority lettings procedure. This was appropriate and in line with its allocations policy. It is positive that it also explained how he could apply for a MEX.
Overall, the landlord’s justification of how it handled the resident’s reports of ASB in its complaint responses was reasonable. However, it incorrectly told him it could not act on harassment and drug use. This was not in line with its ASB policy. That being said, we are satisfied that it dealt with these issues appropriately, except for the service failures we have highlighted.
We also understand the landlord’s decision not to install steel bars. It is widely accepted they can prevent residents escaping during a fire and block firefighters from entering. However, the resident asked for these as he felt unsafe due to a perceived threat from neighbours. The landlord’s ‘providing services to vulnerable customers’ policy says it must consider individual circumstances and whether it needs to take a different approach or reasonable adjustment to treat resident’s fairly and reduce the risk of harm to them or their household. Therefore, the landlord should have considered whether alternative security measures could have made the resident and his family feel safer.
There was no independent evidence to show the resident and his family were at risk. The landlord showed some empathy towards his situation, apologising that he witnessed the altercation of 3 March 2025. However, it should have considered alternative security measures or a reasonable adjustment given that the resident and his family were vulnerable and police had confirmed he attended in a distressed state.
Its failure to consider other options was another service failure which, when combined with the other failings, amounts to maladministration. However, we are satisfied it has now tried to resolve the resident’s fear of living in the property. Following police attendance at a neighbouring property (after the stage 2 response was issued), the landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation, seemingly through its management move process.
The landlord accommodated the resident’s request for an extra bedroom due to his daughter’s medical condition and offered a 3-bedroom property in an area he had previously expressed an interest in. However, the resident declined this offer on 3 June 2025 for reasons that included the size of the garden, lack of shower, window opening mechanism and impractical positioning of a radiator. Despite the landlord’s management move policy allowing for only one reasonable offer of accommodation, the landlord has agreed to make another, should a suitable property become available.
The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately confirmed the resident needed permission to install CCTV. His tenancy agreement said he must not make any additions or improvements to his home or fixtures or fittings before obtaining written permission. However, the landlord did not address his complaint that it told him the CCTV did not comply with GDPR. This was despite police evidence saying he attended the police station in a distressed state and attributed this in part to the removal of the CCTV.
It is positive the landlord gave retrospective permission for the CCTV on 23 April 2025 and addressed the complaint in the stage 2 response. We understand why it was concerned about where the resident recorded. It is plausible that it would want to consider the privacy of its other residents and members of the public outside of the property. The landlord went on to review the permission as promised and told the resident on 15 May 2025 that his interpretation of GDPR was correct and confirmed he could allow the CCTV to record beyond the curtilage of the property.
However, we have not seen that the landlord apologised for initially telling the resident his CCTV did not comply with GDPR and considered the effect of this. Therefore, the landlord has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord has provided a copy of its ‘CCTV and video doorbell’ policy which appears to have been updated to include GDPR. The resident has asked the landlord to update its policy and review his permission.
It is not within our remit to decide if the landlord’s policy complies with GDPR. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is better suited to deal with such matters. We order the landlord to review the CCTV and video doorbell permission that it gave to the resident in line with its associated policy and confirm its position in writing. The resident can contact the ICO if he believes the landlord’s response does not comply with GDPR.
The resident said the issues impacted on his family’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. It is positive that the landlord invited the resident to pursue a claim through its insurers.
However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £250 compensation for its failure to do the following at the earliest opportunity:
1. Provide a noise application and diary sheets.
2. Refer or signpost the resident to the EHT for noise and litter issues.
3. Consider alternative security measures.
4. Put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
This reflects our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right. However, the amount of compensation is mitigated as the resident withdrew his support for the ASB case and was able to gather evidence through other means. Therefore, the lack of noise recording technology and diary sheets was unlikely to have had a material impact on the overall outcome of the ASB case.
We are satisfied the landlord has given appropriate consideration to the resident’s safeguarding concerns of others. The resident is also able to report concerns to his council’s adult and child services teams or the police.
The resident told us ASB has continued after the complaint process ended. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement.
However, for context the landlord has provided evidence that it has continued to address the resident’s reports of ASB. It facilitated a meeting with him and police on 18 July 2025 as promised. It discussed options on how to deal with ASB. The resident can make a new complaint if he is dissatisfied with how the landlord has handled issues following the stage 2 response.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, aiming to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It should issue stage 1 responses in 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. Further, the Code says landlords can extend this timeframe by 10 working days.
The landlord replied at both stages within the extended period, and when it told the resident to expect a response. Therefore, it dealt with the complaint within a reasonable time and in line with its policy and the Code. We have, therefore, found no maladministration.
We acknowledge that the landlord told the resident it could have responded sooner and awarded £35 for the impact of this. We recommend it pays this to the resident if it has not done so already.

Learning

Communication and Record Keeping

The landlord has evidenced regular communication with the resident through different means including, email, telephone and home visits.
The landlord provided sufficient records to enable us to determine the complaint. However, it was difficult to assess the resident’s complaint that the landlord dismissed some of his evidence. While we are satisfied that the evidence provided by the resident would not have changed the overall outcome, the landlord should have recorded details of the footage and why it chose not to act on it. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened and clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision not to act.