Incommunities Limited (202409286)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202409286

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Incommunities Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

27 February 2026

Background

  1. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about staff conduct and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours between 2022 and 2024. In December 2024, she asked it to take part in mediation and she responded to comments it made about her use of a doorbell camera. She also asked the landlord to protect her identity and not share the information she provided with the police or her neighbours. She asked the landlord to provide a rehousing letter for her to give the local authority. The landlord’s handling of these issues was the subject of her complaints.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. ASB reports.
    2. Rehousing request.
  2. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s ASB reports

  1. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment in response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbours. It did not explain what evidence it needed to take legal action or help manage the resident’s expectations. It did not offer proportionate compensation for the impact of its poor handling of the issue.

The resident’s rehousing request

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s rehousing request and gave her a letter she asked for as it agreed in its complaint response.

The complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not speak to the resident about her stage 1 complaint or respond to her stage 2 complaint in line with its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge these failings or offer the resident compensation to put right the impact of this on her.

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 failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic
  • it has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

27 March 2026

 

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows:

  • £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling her ASB reports
  • £100 for the time and inconvenience the landlord’s complaint handling caused the resident

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It may deduct any payments it has already made. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

27 March 2026

 

ASB Order

The landlord is ordered to: Contact the resident about her reports of ASB. Consider if it should open a new case and respond in line with its ASB policy and procedures. Update the resident with its decision and any action plan it agrees in writing.
    1. No later than

27 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend the landlord to advise residents to request permission for the installation and use of doorbell cameras if it has not already done so.

We recommend the landlord contact the resident about her rehousing request and follow this up in writing so she is clear about the rehousing options she has available to her.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

30 November 2023

The resident made a stage 1 complaint about ASB from her neighbours. She told the landlord about the types of ASB her neighbours were involved in. She said the police were investigating the issues, but the landlord did not care about her situation but she wanted it to take legal action.

1 December 2023

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

14 December 2023

The landlord sent the resident a holding response.

15 December 2023

The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said it investigated the complaint without speaking to her because she did not want 2 staff members to visit her. It said it had reviewed her videos, written to all residents, and would send an information request to the police to gather evidence of ASB. It agreed to contact a named police officer to follow up on her reports and to speak neighbours about an incident she had recorded. It said her concerns about 2 staff members were unfounded, as both staff members followed its code of conduct. It said the staff members would continue to deal with her housing concerns. It also said her doorbell camera recorded beyond her property boundary which was unacceptable and she should move this. It did not say if it upheld the complaint.

21 and 23 December 2023

The resident escalated her complaint. She said:

  • she was concerned about the conduct of 2 staff members and had asked the landlord for mediation but it refused her request
  • she had not asked the landlord to share information she had sent with the police
  • her doorbell camera was a disability aid which she needed to communicate, she displayed signs informing visitors about this which the police approved and she thought the landlord allowed some people to use doorbell cameras without permission
  • she complained about dog nuisance since 2021, but the landlord had not resolved the complaint, her neighbours were known to the police, and she had sent information that showed ASB and intimidation
  • the tenant’s handbook encouraged CCTV to combat ASB.

22 December 2023

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

30   January 2024

The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It said it handled staff conduct concerns separately, offered mediation, and assigned a different officer to manage ASB reports. It confirmed it had contacted other residents for evidence but received no further reports. It said it could request police information with her consent and had reviewed her ASB videos but she said she did not want it to discuss these with her neighbours. It logged an anonymous ASB case, approved her use of a doorbell camera, and said it could not rehouse her but it would write to the local authority. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for distress and inconvenience it caused.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord should resolve her ASB concerns, support her with rehousing, and investigate its staff’s conduct.

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 resident’s ASB reports

Finding

Maladministration

What we did not investigate

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  2. The resident raised concerns about staff conduct, neighbour nuisance, and her use of a doorbell camera in another complaint the landlord responded to in March 2022. She did not ask us to investigate this complaint but complained to the landlord about these again in November and December 2023. We normally expect residents to bring their complaint to us within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. We have not seen any reasons which prevented the resident bringing her complaint to us sooner. Therefore, we have not investigated her earlier complaint.

What we did investigate

  1. In ASB cases our role is not to investigate if a complaint is ASB but to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB. We have investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, ASB and neighbour nuisance, and her use of a doorbell camera from 12 months before her November 2023 complaint. Any references to incidents that took place before then are for background information only.
  2. The resident raised concerns about her neighbours in her stage 1 complaint on 30 November 2023. She said the police had investigated these issues and she wanted the landlord to take legal action. She did not report these concerns to the landlord before she raised the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says it would open an ASB case and assess any risks and support needs when investigating ASB reports. However, it did not do so when responding to the resident’s concerns. Considering the reports she made about her neighbours it should have assessed any risks and her support needs.
  4. The landlord arranged a visit within 4 days to discuss her concerns and decide how to respond. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it responds to nuisance reports within 3 to 5 days. The resident declined the visit because she believed the landlord ignored her request for a staff member not to investigate her concerns. The landlord did not explain why it thought the staff member should be present to discuss her concerns. It did not offer to meet her without the staff member to explain its investigation procedures and manage her expectations.
  5. The landlord sent a block letter in response to the resident’s concerns on 14 December 2023. It also prepared a police information request the next day.
  6. The landlord updated the resident on these actions in its stage 1 response. It said it had reviewed recorded footage she had sent and it would discuss an incident with her neighbour. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it would investigate reports and keep residents up to date on its progress.
  7. The landlord reviewed a recording the resident sent of her neighbours arguing and acknowledged her request to remain anonymous. It did not send the police information request it prepared, or visit her neighbour, in line with her request.
  8. The landlord visited the resident to discuss her concerns on 20 December 2023. It explained it did not have enough evidence of ASB about her neighbours to take further action. It based this decision on the information it held. It advised her to contact other agencies to report her concerns about criminal and parenting issues. However, it missed the chance to reassure her it would act on any new evidence of ASB or nuisance it received.

The resident’s use of a doorbell camera

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord gave the resident advice about her doorbell camera after reviewing footage she had supplied. Its advice about the use of doorbell cameras was in line with advice it received from the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO).
  2. The resident emailed the landlord about her doorbell camera on 21 December 2023. She said she displayed signs about its use, and she did not invade anyone’s privacy unless it picked up their movement. She said she was not sharing footage with anyone other than in connection with crime and she believed she was not breaking data protection rules. She escalated the issue in her stage 2 complaint and said the landlord should tell all residents doorbell cameras were unacceptable if that was its decision.
  3. The landlord addressed the resident’s use of a doorbell camera on 30 January 2024. It considered her use of the camera, her reports that it was a disability aid, and the ICO advice she had referred to. It said it would allow her to keep her doorbell camera and said she could take its complaint response as consent.

Staff conduct and mediation

  1. The resident asked the landlord to take part in mediation on 4 December 2023 due to her concerns about staff conduct. However, she later said the landlord refused her request. We have not seen the landlord’s response. It would have been helpful for it to agree to take part in mediation to support the resident and understand her concerns.
  2. In its stage 1 response of 15 December 2023, the landlord said the resident’s concerns about 2 staff members were unfounded because they both followed its code of conduct. However, it did not explain how it reached this conclusion to support its decision and manage the resident’s expectations. It said the staff would continue to be the resident’s main contact, without explaining why. This was unfair, as it had not spoken to her about her recent concerns before sending its response.
  3. In January 2024, the resident asked the landlord not to send anything to the 2 staff members as she did not want to deal with staff she felt investigated poorly. Her choice to stop engaging with the neighbourhood staff was outside the landlord’s control. However, it spoke to her to better understand her views before sending its stage 2 reply on 30 January 2024.
  4. The landlord reviewed how it handled the resident’s staff conduct concerns and her mediation request on 30 January 2024 in its final complaint response. It reviewed its earlier decisions and agreed to take part in mediation to repair its relationship with her. In the interim, it also agreed a different staff member would be her main contact. This was positive.

Summary

  1. The resident’s requests to stay anonymous and not share information with the police or her neighbours limited the landlord’s ability to respond directly to her concerns. It reviewed recordings, sent a block letter to gather evidence, and opened an anonymous ASB case in line with is ASB policy. It also asked for the resident’s consent to send a police information request to gather evidence of ASB. However, it did not complete a risk assessment, update her regularly and explain its investigation procedures when she reported her concerns. It delayed agreeing to take part mediation and missed the opportunity to explain how its staff met its code of conduct. It also did to respond to her reports of cannabis and the impact of the neighbour’s dog pen in its final complaint response. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience its handling of her ASB concerns caused her. However, it missed the opportunity to offer her compensation to put right these failings. Overall, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble its handling of her ASB reports caused her. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not fully recognised its failings or offered to put things right. We have also ordered it to contact the resident about her ASB reports and decide whether to open an ASB case to investigate any reported concerns.

Complaint

The resident’s rehousing request

Finding

No maladministration
  1. The resident asked the landlord for rehousing in 2022. It sent her the application details on 28 January 2022. In January 2024 she said she wanted to move again but did not want the landlord to rehouse her in one of its local properties. She explained the local authority would not add her to its waiting list without a letter confirming the landlord could not rehouse her. The landlord agreed to provide this in its stage 2 complaint response and sent her the letter on 20 February 2024.
  2. The resident chose to move from the landlord’s housing. She asked it for a letter to give to the local authority and it provided this. Taking this into account, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  3. It would have been supportive for the landlord to provide the resident with further information about her rehousing options and the local authority’s rehousing lists in its complaint response. We have recommended it to contact her about this.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaint policy. It responded 1 working day later than its complaint policy. However, it sent a holding response advising its response would be late. It did not say if it upheld the complaint.
  3. The landlord investigated the resident’s stage 1 complaint without speaking to her. This was not in line with its complaint policy which says it will try to understand the complaint and the outcomes residents are seeking at an early opportunity.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with its complaint policy. However, it responded 3 working days later than its complaint policy. It upheld the complaint, but it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failings. It also missed the opportunity to offer the resident compensation to put right the inconvenience of its delays.
  5. The landlord’s failings did not have a significant impact on the outcome for the resident.  We found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

  1. The landlord should have completed a risk assessment when the resident reported her concerns. The landlord should learn from this complaint and consider how it communicates with residents about ASB and risk.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord did not provide us with full evidence of its actions to address the resident’s ASB reports, such as its ASB case file. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear and complete records and that it can provide them when asked.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses were empathetic. However, it should learn from this complaint by considering whether to send more information about a residents’ rehousing options and the local authority’s waiting list when replying to their rehousing requests.