Midland Heart Limited (202321623)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321623

Midland Heart Limited

7 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment from his neighbour including:
1. the level of information it gave about any known ASB when he viewed the property in late-2021.
2. its handling of and communication about court proceedings for a breach of an injunction in mid-2023.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the 1-bedroom flat since November 2021.
In mid-April 2022, the resident reported experiencing ASB from his neighbour, including noise disturbances (such as singing and shouting), abusive language, and a threat of violence. He said he considered this behaviour was caused by his neighbour using drugs. The landlord logged an ASB case, assessed the level of risk as ‘medium’, advised the resident to gather evidence of the behaviour, and contact the police in an emergency. It also assigned an officer to investigate the matter with him and his neighbour. While initially the neighbour’s behaviour subsided after a warning from the landlord, from June 2022 the resident was frequently reporting that the behaviours were continuing and escalating. By October 2022 both the landlord and police believed there was enough evidence to support legal action. An injunction was then granted by the courts on 9 December 2022, preventing the neighbour from acting in a threatening way against the resident.
Within a short while, the resident reported his neighbour’s behaviour was deteriorating again. The landlord advised the resident to continue to log and record evidence to support it taking further legal action. This was reviewed by the landlord’s legal team at the end of February 2023, and the resident was informed there was enough evidence to support action for breach of the injunction. An initial hearing took place at the end of June 2023, which the resident attended. The landlord later advised the resident that a final hearing was due to be listed in late August 2023. However, instead the neighbour accepted an offer to settle. The landlord advised the resident on 31 August 2023 that it had decided it was inappropriate to pursue other legal action at that time.
The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his ASB case on the same day as receiving the update on the proceedings. He said:
1. He was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to seek possession of the neighbour’s property.
2. The landlord had not considered the further evidence he submitted between April and August 2023, including that his neighbour made a false report to the fire brigade.
3. The landlord should have informed him about the settlement decision sooner.

The resident said he had been caused significant distress and worry from the harassment from his neighbour. He also said he had spent considerable time logging and reporting evidence of potential breaches for the final hearing.

In its stage 1 response, dated 21 September 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed the handling of the case and had found its ASB policy and process had been followed. In summary, it said:
1. The officer assigned to the case had kept in regular contact with the resident.
2. It and its legal team had reviewed all the evidence he submitted.
3. The neighbour had reported a potential fire because they could smell smoke, which later turned out to be incense.
4. The case was regularly reviewed alongside someone senior.
5. It was still considering serving a notice to seek possession but explained this required sufficient evidence to present to court.
6. It acknowledged that its communication about what would happen after some of his contacts through its customer hubs should have been clearer.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on the same day. He later added to his complaint on 28 September 2023. In summary, the resident said he was unhappy because he felt the landlord had:
1. Failed to answer honestly when he asked about whether the area was quiet when he viewed the property in 2021.
2. Unfairly given him a verbal warning for an incident he recorded on his ASB log 2 months prior.
3. “[G]lossed over” that 5 months of evidence he had sent was not made available to the Judge.
4. Unfairly accepted the neighbour’s reason for reporting the potential fire.

The resident said he wanted “to be free of” the property and to be compensated for the impact on him.

The landlord responded on 18 October 2023. It said it:
1. Acknowledged his frustrations that he was not advised of any ongoing issues with his neighbour.
2. Agreed the verbal warning was “inappropriate” given the amount of time that had passed.
3. Was satisfied it had acted on the resident’s evidence and had been successful in gaining an injunction.
4. Encouraged him to continue to submit evidence to support its further legal action.
5. Had awarded compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience he had been caused.
After the complaints process ended, the landlord decided to seek grounds for possession of the neighbour’s property. This was issued to the courts at some point between July 2024 and November 2024, as was a further injunction. The neighbour appealed the possession notice, although we are unaware of the outcome of this. In February 2025, the resident was temporarily moved to a hotel because of ongoing ASB and fears for his safety. He has since been offered permanent accommodation by the landlord.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the landlord’s finding of no failings in the handling of his ASB case. He said it did not treat his reports between April and August 2023 seriously and consider his substantial evidence. The resident said he had been caused significant distress and his mental health had deteriorated. He added that he felt he wasted time in logging evidence that was not considered and lost his business.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint, the resident described being significantly impacted by the ASB he experienced. This included impacts to his health and his livelihood. He advised he was seeking substantial compensation for these. We acknowledge that the circumstances of the complaint were extremely distressing. It is however outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and an individual’s health. We are also unable to determine if they caused the resident to lose his business. Such matters are better suited to a court or a landlord’s liability insurer to determine. We are aware that the landlord has already advised the resident about how to make a claim for damages, which was appropriate. Consideration in this investigation is given to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings on the part of the landlord.
This case is complex because of the frequency, severity, and duration of the ASB, which spans 3 years. However, in line with our process, this investigation will focus on the specific issues the resident complained about and which he told us he remains unhappy with. In doing so, we have exercised our discretion and investigated the resident’s concerns about the level of information the level of information he was given when viewing the property in late-2021. We have also considered some events, and the impact of them, that occurred after the complaints process ended. Our decision to do this was based on the fact the landlord sent a further response in November 2024 explaining its actions to secure an injunction and seek possession. It has, therefore, reasonably had fair opportunity to consider the more recent events, but failed to do so.
Any reference to events occurring between April 2022 and April 2023 are included for context.

Viewing in 2021

According to the landlord’s ASB policy at the time, one of its approaches to tackling ASB was through preventive methods. It states this includes consideration of whether a person has been evicted for or subject of civil proceedings for ASB. However, this applies to applicants rather than existing tenants. There was therefore no requirement in its ASB policy, or in any other we have seen, for the landlord to disclose any information about any known ASB to applicants.
In the situation the resident described in his complaint, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to advise about any general ASB in the neighbourhood or building if questioned. Although it should be noted the landlord would be bound by data protection laws. Therefore, it would not have been able to disclose any information about individuals.
There has been no way for us to verify the resident’s account of what was discussed at the viewing. However, the landlord accepted a failing in this respect in its stage 2 response. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the impact of this by awarding compensation.
We cannot speculate that the resident would have decided not to accept the property on offer. We recognise though that he has likely been caused distress from the uncertainty about whether he would have, had he been more able to make an informed decision. This report will consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s compensation award after considering other events the resident complained about.

Court proceedings in 2023

According to the landlord’s ASB policy, it takes a “problem solving approach” to handling cases. While it states it will take action based on the individual circumstances of a report, the policy indicates that in all cases it aims to:
1. Complete a risk assessment to determine the priority, appropriate intervention, and support it will give to those involved.
2. Create an action plan.
3. Investigate the circumstances with all relevant parties.
4. Use a variety of methods to attempt to tackle the behaviour, with a focus on early, non-legal interventions.
Prior to the events concerned in this complaint, the evidence shows the landlord carried out the above actions. It also shows it had attempted to manage the ASB through various non-legal interventions. While the resident reported some success, this was only short-lived. The landlord then sought and was successful in obtaining an injunction against the neighbour. This prevented them from being threatening or abusive toward the resident, and from using behaviour that could cause a nuisance or distress. The resident reported some improvement to the level and frequency of the behaviour, but this was again short-lived.
On 2 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident there was enough evidence to support taking the matter to court again for breach of the injunction. This was on the basis the neighbour had shouted at the resident through the dividing wall. According to the contact notes, it was clear the resident was unhappy that the landlord was not also seeking possession at the same time. While we recognise the resident’s frustration, the landlord’s approach was in line with its policy. This states that, where possession or eviction are concerned, it will “only” seek this “where other action has been unsuccessful; or where the behaviour is so serious, no other action is appropriate.”
It is not evidenced in the available records when the landlord made its submission to the courts. However, based on the contact logs, it is more likely than not that this was in March or April 2023. The committal hearing was then listed for 27 June 2023.
While the matter was with the courts, we would expect to see the landlord was still following its ASB policy in logging and, where possible, investigating further reports. The evidence shows the landlord did investigate further potential breaches that the resident reported during the 3-month period before the initial hearing. It also liaised with the police about its investigations into possible crimes against the resident and other neighbours. The records also show the landlord attempted to address the neighbour’s behaviour by giving warnings. As such, we are satisfied it was acting, to a reasonable extent, in line within its ASB policy while awaiting the hearing.
One of the key approaches to managing ASB cases, according to the policy, was to provide support. This included keeping tenants regularly updated, managing expectations, and identifying ways in which to help the person reporting the ASB. We have seen the landlord was keeping the resident updated at regular, scheduled review meetings. It also involved him in the legal process, including in producing his witness statement for court and inviting him to the hearing. The landlord also explained the level of evidence it needed from him was far lower than he was submitting. When the resident expressed worry about the possibility of actual violence, following an incident between the neighbour and another tenant, it appointed a security service. We are satisfied, therefore, the evidence shows the landlord was providing a reasonable amount of support prior to the hearing.
After the initial hearing, the landlord believed there would be a final one listed after 29 August 2023. We have seen it advised the resident on 21 July 2023 of the timescale it was working to. This was that it needed to provide updated witness statements by the end of July and an evidence bundle by the end of August 2023. Based on the records, it is apparent the resident had provided some further evidence in the form of ASB logs by mid-July 2023. However, he also said he was still working on extracting recordings to support the logs.
The landlord advised in its stage 1 response from late September 2023 that it and its legal team had reviewed the resident’s evidence. While this was the case, there is no record, that we have seen, that the landlord reviewed the logs. It is not clear if this is because it failed to consider this or it (or its legal team) did but did not record its findings. Crucially, we seen no evidence that it provided the resident with an update about whether any of his newer reports would be included in the updated witness statement. And if not, why. The lack of communication during such a critical time was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy to keep victims updated and set their expectations. This was a failing, which the landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint responses.
On 31 August 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the neighbour had accepted an offer to settle. It also said that its legal team had decided it would not be proportionate to seek grounds for possession given the neighbour had agreed to adhere to the terms of the order. We recognise this must have been a disappointing outcome. Breaching an injunction is one of the mandatory grounds a landlord can seek possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its legal team. It was also, as previously mentioned, in line with its approach to only seeking possession where all other actions had failed.
The evidence shows the landlord believed a final hearing would be listed in late August 2023. It is not apparent from the available records what changed and when. Neither of the landlord’s responses offered a direct explanation about its handling of the case during the proceedings. This was in appropriate because the resident specifically complained that he was not kept updated. It was also a requirement of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”.
We have though seen that the landlord was aware of the potential offer in mid-August 2023 because it recorded it needed to seek an update from the legal team on it. There was no record of when the landlord received the update. We are therefore unable to establish if the landlord could have shared the outcome of the hearing sooner than it did. It was though reasonable, in our view, that the landlord would prefer to wait to discuss the offer and other options with its legal team before updating the resident about the situation.
One of the reasons the resident escalated his complaint in late-September 2023 was because he had been given a verbal warning for an incident, he reported himself in July 2023 log. The landlord said in its stage 2 response, from mid-October 2023, that its action was “inappropriate” because of the time that had elapsed. While the landlord has an obligation to all its tenants where ASB is concerned, and we have seen there had been counter-reports made from the neighbour against the resident, we agree with its position on this aspect. Not only had the resident recorded this incident on the ASB log, but he also contacted the landlord by email on the date of the incident to explain what had happened. As such, it missed an opportunity to consider investigating the incident under its ASB policy closer to the time that it occurred. This would have been in line with its approach to using early interventions.
The landlord advised in its final response that it was at that time actively seeking possession of the neighbour’s property. This was, based on the records seen, due to new substantial evidence the resident submitted on 10 October 2023. The landlord noted on the ASB log that this demonstrated breaches of the injunction (including shouting, swearing, and banging noises). It also said in its response that it was unable to provide timescales for the legal action. It said this was because the timing was “in the hands of the court system”. While this explanation was correct, the landlord did have within its control the timing of when it submitted the action. So, it would have been reasonable, given the history of ASB up to that point, for it to have given some assurances about the time this could likely take. That it did not do this was a failing in this case.

Post complaint

In its follow up response, dated 8 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in issuing a notice to seek possession against the neighbour. We have not been able to confirm when this was issued from the available ASB logs. However, based on those seen, it seems likely to have been around mid-2023.
The landlord said the reason for this was partly due to the “exceptionally large” volume of evidence from the resident and the need to extract the most significant incidents and breaches. We have seen in the records that the resident was advised he did not need to provide as much evidence, both during the events complained about and after. He was also advised in February 2024 that the amount of information was “not feasible” for the legal team to review and it needed strong evidence of breaches. It is apparent, from the records, that the resident and the landlord had different understandings of what amounted to robust evidence. However, we are satisfied the landlord explained its position on this reasonably well.

Conclusion

We recognise the reported impact of the ASB that the resident has experienced. We have though been unable to link this impact solely to a failing on the part of the landlord. Based on what we have seen, the landlord largely followed its ASB policy over what we recognise has been a challenging and complex situation for all involved- particularly the resident. It however failed to communicate effectively around the breach of injunction proceedings. It also, by its own admission, failed to provide information at the viewing and issue proceedings in a timely manner. The landlord’s failings contributed to delays and an uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different. As such they have caused the resident considerable, avoidable distress.
We recognise the landlord’s award of £250 is above the maximum (£100) its compensation matrix states it may pay where its service failure causes distress and inconvenience. This shows it recognised the significant impact of its failings on the resident. However, it is not proportionate to recognise the cumulative impact of the further failings identified in this report, some of which the landlord failed to acknowledge in its responses. We have therefore awarded further compensation, in line with our guidance on remedies for cases where a landlord’s failings have caused distress and inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment from his neighbour including:
1. the level of information it gave about it when he viewed the property in late-2021.
2. its handling of and communication about court proceedings for a breach of an injunction in mid-2023.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failings in its communication.
2. Paid compensation of £600.

If the landlord has already paid the original compensation of £250 it awarded, it should deduct this.

Recommendation

We encourage landlords to consider recommendations we make in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports. Our recommendations represent best practice in the social housing sector and/or key learnings from our work. In both of our spotlight reports on ‘noise complaints’ (from October 2022) and ‘attitudes, respect and rights’ (from January 2024) we found common themes around communication failings in the handling of ASB cases. This was also the main reason for the failings in this complaint. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our reports.