Thrive Homes Limited (202423429)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202423429

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Thrive Homes Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

27 February 2026

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since September 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is aware the resident has additional needs. In March 2024 the landlord issued the resident with an anti-social behaviour (ASB) warning letter. It issued this on the basis that she had been convicted of an offence relating to an altercation with her neighbour. In June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to remove the warning as the conviction it was based on had been overturned. The landlord said it would not remove the warning because it said it had evidence that she had breached its ASB policy. In June 2024 the landlord asked the resident to move the table and chairs she kept in the communal garden. The resident raised a complaint in response to this.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Its request for the resident to relocate her table and chairs.
    2. The resident’s request that it remove the ASB warning issued in March 2024.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of its request for the resident to relocate her table and chairs.
  2. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request that it remove the ASB warning letter issued in March 2024.
  3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. The resident disputed the landlord’s request that she move her garden table and chairs on the grounds of her health. When the landlord refused to let her keep her items just outside the property she said it had failed to make reasonable adjustments. The evidence seen indicates the landlord offered a reasonable alternative following the resident’s response to its request. It also said it had asked all residents to remove their items from the communal garden. However, it has provided insufficient evidence to show that it did make this request to everyone living at the block of flats. This indicates poor record keeping and a failure to fairly apply its communal areas standards policy. As such, we have made a finding of service failure.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to retract an ASB warning issued in March 2024 because the conviction it was based on was overturned in June 2024. The landlord said it would not retract the warning because its ASB investigation was separate to the court case and it had evidence that she had breached its ASB policy. However, the landlord did not provide any information about the evidence it had relied on when coming to that decision. This was unreasonable and as such we have made a finding of service failure.
  3. There was a small delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response and it did not address all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. However, no evidence has been seen to show that these had any impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint. As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

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 provided by the landlord’s management team.
  • 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

2

Explanation order

The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with an explanation of what evidence it relied on when deciding to maintain the ASB warning issued in March 2024.

This must include an explanation of what this evidence shows regarding the altercation with the neighbour in July 2023 as well as how this shows the resident breached the landlord’s ASB policy.

No later than

27 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

24 June 2024

The resident raised her complaint. The resident said the landlord had asked her to move her table and chairs to the end of the garden. She said she is disabled and cannot walk to the end the garden without severe pain. She said she felt moving her items to the end of the garden would prevent her from enjoying the garden and she needed to keep them under her window.

The resident also raised questions about other items in the communal garden.

16 July 2024

The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had not identified service failures regarding its request for the resident to move her table and chairs to the rear of the garden. It said the request was in line with what it had asked other residents to do and it had to apply the same rules to all residents.

It acknowledged what the resident had said about how she would struggle to move her items and walk to the end of the garden due to her physical health. However, it said it had not received any medical evidence to confirm this. As such, it did not agree that it was being unfair or unreasonable in asking her to move her items.

16 July 2024

The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not:

–       Answered her questions about the equipment in the garden.

–       Responded to her request that it remove the ASB warning letter from March 2024 because the conviction it was based on had been overturned.

–       Acknowledged that it had treated her unfairly by asking her to move her table and chairs to the end of the garden. She said the landlord had allowed her neighbours to leave their items outside.

13 September 2024

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:

–       The equipment the resident had asked about was installed by another resident and it had already asked them to move it.

–       It had told the resident on 26 June 2024 that its investigation into ASB was separate to that of the police. It said it had evidence which showed the resident had breached its ASB policy and as such the warning would remain in place.

–       The request to move items kept in the garden was made to all residents and was in line with other similar requests made since 2021.

6 March 2025

The resident confirmed that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said she believed the landlord’s request for her to move her garden table and chairs was unfair and it had not made reasonable adjustments. She also said she believed its refusal to remove the ASB warning letter following the overturning of the conviction was a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.

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

Request to move garden items

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s communal areas standards policy says residents are responsible for keeping internal and external communal areas completely clear. It says this includes any personal items such as tables and chairs kept in the communal garden. It also says that if the landlord finds items that are a hazard to the health and safety of residents, it will issue a notice and ask that the items are removed within 7 days.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said the request for the resident to move her garden items was in line with requests it had made to other residents. It said in the interest of fairness it had to apply the same rules to all residents. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of its requests for the other residents to remove their items from the communal garden. Additionally, the landlord has told this Service that when items are found in communal areas during inspections it places a tort notice on them. The inspection reports it has provided, in particular from May 2024, do not show that it put any tort notices on the items in the communal garden. In fact, the May 2024 report only refers to those items by saying ‘back garden area some kid equipment does look used’.
  3. That said, it is not in dispute that around 24 June 2024 the landlord asked the resident to remove her items from the communal garden. As such, evidence has not been seen to show the landlord sent this request to all residents in June 2024. This was unreasonable and indicates it did not fairly apply its communal areas standards policy. This also indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
  4. On 24 June 2024 the resident responded to the landlord’s request that she remove her items from the garden. She said that due to her physical health it would not be feasible for her to bring her items in and out of the property when she wanted to sit in the garden. In response the landlord said it was happy for her to keep the items outside but asked that she move them to the rear of the garden. This was a reasonable suggestion and showed the landlord was trying to accommodate the resident’s specific needs.
  5. However, the resident replied to this suggestion and said she was unable to move the items so far away from her garden door. She said that due to her physical health having to walk that far would cause her great difficulty and prevent her from using the garden. In response the landlord said that during a recent block meeting the other residents had agreed to keep their items at the back of the garden. It said that it was therefore only fair that the resident do the same with her items. It also said the resident’s neighbours have windows next to her table and chairs, as such she could hear their conversations and they hers. It said that when bad weather occurs the items could also bang against the building and it was not willing to negotiate on them being moved. Additionally, it said it had not received medical evidence to show the resident was unable to walk the extra 5 metres to the back of the garden.
  6. We appreciate the resident believes that by not allowing her to keep her items right by the garden door the landlord has failed to make reasonable adjustments due to her health. However, there is no definition for what a reasonable adjustment should look like. Whether or not a landlord can be deemed to have made reasonable adjustments depends on the circumstances of the case.
  7. In this instance, the landlord responded to the resident’s request by agreeing to allow her to keep her items outside but at the back of the garden. It said it made this decision based on the resident’s available medical information and similar requests it had made to other residents. As such, we are satisfied the landlord responded to the resident’s request using a fair process.
  8. Overall, as set out above, the landlord’s failure can be summarised as failing to fairly apply its communal areas standards policy. This amounts to service failure and we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report.

Complaint

Request to remove ASB warning

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s ASB policy (October 2023) says it will use various intervention methods to deter or prevent ASB. The policy provides some examples of the intervention methods it can use, including ASB warning letters.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence to us she has said she believed the landlord’s refusal to remove the ASB warning letter is a breach of the Data Protection Act. We may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this instance, we are unable to consider matters relating to breaches of the Data Protection Act. Any concerns the resident has relating to potential breaches of the Data Protection Act would need to be raised with the Information Commissioners Office.
  3. On 12 March 2024 the landlord issued the resident with an ASB warning letter because she had been convicted of an offence relating to an altercation with her neighbour. The letter explained that the resident was in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement relating to harassment, violence and intimidation. It is our understanding that the altercation in question took place in July 2023 and this was the first ASB warning letter issued relating to it.
  4. The evidence seen indicates the resident’s conviction was overturned on 18 June 2024. On 24 June 2024 the resident informed the landlord of this and asked it to retract the warning related to the conviction. The landlord responded the same day and explained that its investigation into reports of ASB is separate to that of the police. It also said it was aware the conviction had been overturned on a ‘technicality’ rather than the resident having been found not to have committed the offence. It said that, therefore, despite the conviction being overturned its warning still applied. However, it also said a manager would contact the resident to discuss this with her directly. We have not seen evidence that this phone call took place. This was unreasonable and indicates poor communication, as well as record keeping, on the part of the landlord.
  5. While the resident was in contact with the landlord about the removal of the ASB warning in June 2024, this was not raised as part of her initial complaint email. Rather, she raised this concern as part of the complaints process in her escalation request. As such the landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response. It reiterated that its investigations into ASB are separate to those of the police and can have different outcomes. It said that it had evidence to demonstrate the resident had breached its ASB policy and as such the warning letter would remain in place.
  6. It is important to note landlords investigate if a breach of its ASB policy has occurred, while the police investigate whether a crime has been committed. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that its investigations into reports of ASB is separate to any investigation the police might carry out. Similarly, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that its investigations into ASB and those carried out by the police can have different outcomes.
  7. The landlord’s ASB warning letter of 12 March 2024 states it was issued due to the resident’s conviction of an offence against her neighbour. On this basis it was appropriate for the landlord to issue the warning in line with its ASB policy. It was also entitled to maintain the warning if it had sufficient evidence to show the resident’s interaction with the neighbour breached its ASB policy.
  8. In its responses to the resident’s requests that the landlord retract the warning and in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had evidence showing she breached its ASB policy. However, information has not been seen to show what evidence the landlord relied on when it decided to maintain the warning despite the conviction being overturned in June 2024. Additionally, evidence has not been seen to show it explained to the resident what the evidence it had relied on showed regarding the incident with the neighbour. We appreciate the landlord might not be able to provide the resident with copies of the evidence itself in order to protect the identity of those reporting ASB. However, it should have explained to the resident what the evidence was and what it showed in relation to any breach of its ASB policy. It was unreasonable and unfair for the landlord not to provide the resident with this information.
  9. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, amount to service failure and can be summarised as a failing:
    1. To keep adequate records.
    2. Adequately explain what it had relied on when it decided to maintain the ASB warning.
  10. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report. We also order the landlord to provide the resident with a full explanation of what kind of evidence it has relied on when deciding not to retract the ASB warning. This must include an explanation of what this evidence shows in relation to the altercation with the neighbour and how this breached the landlord’s ASB policy.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

No maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaints policy (March 2024) says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 and 2. It say it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy also says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 24 June 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 2 July 2024. It then issued its stage 1 response on 16 July 2024. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales, and the landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay. That said, this was a short delay, and we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 July 2024. On 15 August 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that it needed more time and it would issue its response by 13 September 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 13 September 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and its timescales.
  4. When the resident raised her complaint, she raised concerns about other items left in the communal garden. In particular, she asked the landlord to remove the play equipment from the garden unless it was insured and built for ‘commercial use’. She also said she had previously asked the landlord to confirm any insurance details for the play equipment but it had not responded. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response and the resident raised it again in her escalation request. The landlord then answered the resident’s concerns about the play equipment in its stage 2 response.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns about the play equipment in its stage 2 response. However, it should have addressed this at the earliest opportunity, namely within its stage 1 response. That said, we have not seen evidence to show this had an impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint
  6. Overall, while the landlord’s complaint handling could have been better, there is no evidence to show this had an impact on the resident or the complaint. As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord must ensure it adheres to the complaints policy timescales and addresses all the points raised by a resident at the earliest opportunity.

Record Keeping

  1. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.

Communication

  1. The landlord must ensure to adequately explain to a resident the reasons why it has reached a decision. Where appropriate this should include an explanation of the evidence it has relied on when reaching its decision.