Great Places Housing Group Limited (202324938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324938

Great Places Housing Association

15 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A request to terminate her tenancy.
2. A request to set up a payment plan.
3. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy of a 3-bedroom house, where the resident lived with her 2 children. The landlord’s records show the resident is vulnerable. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
On 22 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her request to terminate the tenancy, her request to set-up a payment plan for rent arrears, and her reports of ASB.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and consulted with the police. The landlord said it had obtained a possession order for the resident’s property in April 2023. It said that during the court proceedings, it had agreed the resident’s notice of termination would be effective from 3 December 2022. The landlord said this reduced the resident’s rent arrears and it had altered the resident’s account to reflect this.
On 20 October 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023. It explained the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB and said it had followed its ASB policy. The landlord said it had agreed to accept the resident’s notice to end her tenancy as being effective from December 2022. This, it said, had significantly reduced the resident’s rent arrears. It accepted there had been a significant delay in setting up a payment plan for the remaining arrears. The landlord apologised and awarded £100 compensation, which it said would be used to reduce the resident’s arrears.
The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the termination of the resident’s tenancy

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme says we cannot consider complaints that “are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits is given”.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that she believed the landlord mishandled her notice to terminate her tenancy. The landlord agreed as part of a possession hearing that was held on 28 April 2023 to accept the resident’s notice to terminate with effect from 3 December 2022. As such, the handling of the termination was part and parcel of the legal proceedings. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to set up a payment plan

The resident emailed the landlord on 5 May 2023 to ask to set up a payment plan for rent arrears. The resident did not receive a response from the landlord, and she sent a further email request on 14 September 2023.
On 22 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her request to set-up a payment plan.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said it had adjusted the rent account to reflect the termination date which reduced the resident’s rent arrears. The landlord did not address its handling of the resident’s request to set-up a payment plan.
The evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2023 about setting up the payment plan.
After the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed, the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. It acknowledged there was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s request to set up a payment plan. The landlord apologised and awarded £100 compensation, which it said would be used to reduce the resident’s arrears.
In the circumstances the landlord’s apology, its acknowledgement of the delay, compensation award, and subsequent attempts to contact the resident represent reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email requests to set up a payment plan, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord falls within the range in our remedies guidance for a failing that was short in duration and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the anti-social behaviour

The purpose of this investigation is for us to decide whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. We will also look at whether its actions were fair and reasonable. The investigation does not include establishing whether ASB took place or who was responsible.
On 28 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about children playing in the street and damage she said had been caused to her car as a result. The resident said she was reluctant to contact the police. She explained she had previously fled domestic violence and was fearful of interactions with the police. She asked the landlord if it could put up signs to say ballgames were not allowed.
The landlord’s ASB policy:
1. Defines ASB as “unacceptable activity that can negatively impact the lives of people, often on a daily basis”.
2. Confirms it considers “nuisance and harassment” to be ASB.
3. States the landlord will take a “robust approach to individuals affected by incidents motivated by hate or harassment”.
4. Lists activities the landlord does not consider to be ASB. These include general disagreements, ball games and children playing.
The landlord visited the resident on 5 October 2022. During the visit, the resident disclosed she suffered from anxiety and trauma. The landlord explained that children playing did not come within the definition of ASB. It told the resident there was limited action it could take and that ‘no ballgames’ signs were unlikely to be effective. The landlord said it would monitor the situation and could consider sending letters to remind people to be considerate to other residents.
Our conclusion is that the resident’s report of children playing did not meet the landlord’s definition of ASB, and the landlord communicated this to the resident. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of its ASB procedure. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have logged the resident’s report and its decision that it did not constitute ASB. As the landlord identified further potential actions, these should have been recorded, together with an agreed timeline for any follow-up contact with the resident – either on its tenancy management system or ASB system.
On 10 October 2022 the resident made a report of criminal damage, harassment and racial abuse to the police. The report was closed on 21 October 2022 due to “evidential difficulties” as no suspect had been identified.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 29 October and 30 October 2022. She reported she had been stalked, threatened, verbally abused and received a threat to kill her son’s rabbit. The allegations relate to the report the resident made to police on 10 October 2022. The resident told the landlord that children continued to play ball games in front of her property and had trampled her flowers. The resident said she felt like the children’s parents had encouraged them to do this.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that when the landlord receives a ASB report it will:
1. Assess the report and, where possible, resolve issues at the point of contact.
2. Use “professional judgement” and an ASB risk assessment to inform its approach.
3. Consider any vulnerabilities or safeguarding concerns to inform its approach.
4. Consider the need for additional security and ‘target hardening’ measures.
5. Agree the frequency of contact with the resident and work with other relevant agencies.
There is no evidence that on receipt of the resident’s emails the landlord logged the reports or conducted a risk assessment.
On 7 and 8 November 2022 there was an email exchange between the landlord and the police about the resident’s reports and wider neighbourhood issues.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 November 2022. During the conversation, the resident told it someone had entered her property and removed personal items. The landlord asked if the resident had evidence to support the allegations and she said she did not. The landlord advised it would not record an ASB case. The landlord advised the resident it would make the relevant support referrals and liaise with the police. The resident gave her consent to the landlord contacting her GP.
The landlord said the purpose of the call had been to clarify the information the resident had provided by email, including allegations made 9 days earlier. In view of the serious nature of these allegations it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident sooner, or for it to have conducted a risk-based assessment that guided the scheduling of the call. The landlord has not provided evidence that it completed such an assessment.
The landlord told the resident it would not open an ASB case as no evidence had been provided. The landlord’s ASB policy allowed it to use “professional judgement” to determine its approach. The evidence shows the landlord had significant concerns about the resident’s mental health and wellbeing and that it opened a safeguarding case after the call.
However, the ASB policy also stated that in addition to its professional judgement, the landlord would use an ASB risk assessment to determine its approach. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted such an assessment prior to telling the resident it would not open an ASB case. Had the landlord assessed the risk and used this information, together with its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it might have considered measures such as mediation or ‘target hardening’ to address the resident’s concerns.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord received a report from a neighbour about the resident. The neighbour reported concern for the resident’s welfare and alleged the resident had been aggressive and abusive.
Also on 9 November 2022, the landlord contacted the police about the resident’s reports. The landlord expressed concern for the resident’s wellbeing and said it had made safeguarding referrals. The evidence confirms the landlord made referrals to adult and children’s social services on that date.
The resident met with the police on 11 November 2022. After the meeting, the police provided an update to the landlord, which noted:
1. The resident had described issues with children playing ballgames, damage to her car and finding some neighbours intimidating.
2. The resident did not want to take any further action but would like to move.
3. The resident had been advised to speak with the landlord about a potential move and to report any further incidents to the police and the landlord.
The landlord received notification on 10 November 2022 that the safeguarding referrals had been rejected. On the same date, the landlord contacted the resident’s GP and reported its concerns about the resident’s wellbeing.
On 18 November 2022 the resident requested a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy and asked for her ASB reports to be reviewed. The landlord provided a link to information on its website. It said a manager would be in touch about the reports.
The landlord’s records of an internal phone call on 21 November 2022 stated:
1. It did not have an open ASB case for the resident.
2. It had called the resident after it had received her request for an ASB case review.
3. During the call, the resident said she felt unsafe and was subject to harassment.
4. The resident referenced the incident on 10 October 2022, when she said she was verbally abused. The landlord asked if the resident would like it to investigate the allegations, but the resident did not.
5. The landlord and resident had discussed rehousing options, but the resident said she wanted to move to a different city.
On 21 November 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a diary to log any future incidents.
On 22 November 2022 the resident asked for an update on the ASB investigation. The landlord said it had already explained there was not an open ASB case, as it had not received specific allegations.
The resident told the landlord on 29 November 2022 that she had “fled” to another city. On 3 December 2022 the resident told the landlord she wanted to submit notice to terminate her tenancy. The evidence shows the landlord then tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident by phone and email.
The resident contacted the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ service on 3 January 2023 to advise she had returned to the area but was unable to go back to the property. The landlord placed the resident in temporary hotel accommodation for 3 nights.
In an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 5 January 2023, the resident said she felt unsafe in the property because of the alleged incident on 10 October 2022. The resident said she wanted to move to a different city. She asked the landlord to provide a letter of support for a housing application that explained she had been subject to harassment. The landlord confirmed it had provided a letter in support of the resident’s housing application. The landlord offered to set up a meeting with the resident and police to explore what they could do to investigate the incident. The landlord said it could offer ‘target hardening’, if this would make the resident feel safer at the property.
The evidence shows that shortly after the resident sought accommodation out of area and ceased to live at the property. Following a court hearing on 28 April 2023 the landlord took possession of the property.
On 6 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and consulted with the police.
After the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. The landlord said it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and conducted home visits, worked with the police and advised the resident on rehousing options. The landlord said it was satisfied staff had acted in accordance with its ASB policy.
In summary, the landlord followed its ASB policy and assessed the resident’s reports in accordance with its professional judgement. It made referrals to support services and acted on safeguarding concerns. It did not, however, carry out risk assessments following some of the resident’s reports. Had the landlord conducted the assessments, it might have identified measures, such as mediation that could have been of assistance. It is noted the landlord did provide the resident with incident diaries and offered ‘target hardening’ and meeting with police. However, had it conducted a risk assessment of the resident’s harassment allegation it could potentially have suggested these measures sooner. As a result, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £75 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Complaint handling

The resident complained about the issues set out in the complaint on 22 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her requests to terminate the tenancy and set-up a payment plan, and its handling of her reports of ASB.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its customer feedback policy states at stage 1 the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It states at stage 2 the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledging a resident’s request to escalate their complaint. The policy does not set out a timeline for providing an acknowledgement of the complaint or escalation request.
The policy allows for the timelines at stage 1 and stage 2 to be extended by up to 10 working days if further time is needed to complete an investigation. If the landlord requires more time, it will explain this to the resident and provide a revised timeline.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 26 September 2023.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that due to the complexity of issues raised it needed an additional 10 working days to investigate.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023.
The landlord followed its customer feedback policy and told the resident it needed extra time to investigate her complaint. It provided a stage 1 response 10 working days after, which was in line with the timeline it had given the resident.
On 20 October 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request for her complaint to be reviewed on 25 October 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023.
This was 22 working days after the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. This was 2 working days after the timeline set out in the landlord’s customer feedback policy.
In summary, the landlord informed the resident it required extra time to investigate her complaint. It provided a stage 1 response within the revised response timeframe. The stage 2 response was provided 2 working days after the target response time. Although the landlord did not meet the timeline in its customer feedback policy the delay was minimal and did not a material effect on the resolution of the resident’s complaint. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of the termination of her tenancy is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to set up a payment plan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and should not be paid to a rent or service charge account.