Aspire Housing Limited (202524599)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving a neighbour. The reports included noise disturbances, drug use, intimidating behaviour, parking disputes, dogs barking, and dogs escaping onto the street. The resident also reported a data breach. She informed the landlord that these issues were affecting both her and her husband’s mental health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Concerns that the landlord shared her personal information with a neighbour.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. We made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord shared her personal information with a neighbour.
5. We made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB, encouraged the resident to gather evidence and engaged with relevant partner agencies.
7. The landlord disclosed information to the resident’s neighbour in error. This had a significant impact on the resdient. The landlord recognised the severity of its error, apologised and offered compensation. It engaged with the neighbour to explain its mistake. It engaged with the police to assist in providing reassurance to the resident and it offered the practical measure of CCTV in attempt to alleviate the resident’s concerns.

8. The landlord responded promptly and in full to the resident’s complaints.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident reported that ASB had occurred over several years and felt that the landlord had not taken effective action. She said that the ASB often stops for months at a time and begins again in the spring and summer. While we acknowledge the impact that a recurring pattern of ASB could have on a resident, the available evidence for 2024 shows the resident made one ASB report in July 2024. This report is not sufficient to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of behaviour or inaction by the landlord. Given the single report in 2024 and the absence of further reports for the 10 months following that report, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the report made in May 2025 as a new ASB case.
9. The remainer of this investigation focuses on how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB from that time onwards.
10. The resident reported ASB on 21 May 2025. The landlord completed a risk assessment and an action plan on the same day in line with its ASB policy. It wrote to the neighbours accused of ASB to arrange a visit. It met them within 1 week and followed up the visits with warning letters, although the dates of these letters were unclear. The landlord’s response showed a structured approach which aligned with its policy.
11. The resident said that the landlord was not acting appropriately in response to her ASB reports. She said the landlord had closed the case and that she felt dismissed. The landlord reviewed evidence submitted on 18 June 2025, including videos, and explained why it was not sufficient for formal action. For example it said that a video showing a man leaving a property did not verify ASB. The landlord confirmed that the case had not been closed and apologised if the resident had felt dismissed. It said its intention was to help resident’s understanding of what type of evidence she should provide.
12. On 18 June 2025 the landlord told the resident that it had engaged with the neighbour and reminded the neighbour of her tenancy obligations, including not causing noise nuisance. It issued a follow up letter to the neighbour the same day which included the additional ASB reports and highlighted the risk of tenancy enforcement action. It agreed a date to update the resident on. The landlord’s responses kept the resident informed and its actions were proportionate considering the available evidence.
13. The resident disputed having to repeatedly provide evidence. The landlord’s ASB policy requires the resident to take an active role in the investigation and the landlord encouraged this. On 11 June 2025 it provided diary sheets and, on 18 June 2025, it confirmed how the resident could submit digital evidence. On 20 June 2025 it provided a link to a NoiseApp and suggested the resident record evidence this way too. This was appropriate, encouraged evidence gathering and aligned with its policy.
14. The resident reported impacts on her and her partner’s health caused by the ASB. We cannot reach conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, health impacts. This would be more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. We have, however, considered how the landlord responded to these reports.
15. After the confidentiality breach on 4 July 2025, the resident reported feeling increased anxiety and impacts on her and her partner’s mental wellbeing. The resident also reported intimidation by her neighbour, including on 17 July 2025 when the neighbour followed the resident’s partner in the street. The landlord spoke with the resident and the police that day. The police said they would not act as there was insufficient evidence for an investigation. The landlord asked the police to consider what measures it could take for the resident and to provide her with reassurance.
16. The landlord had also offered to install security cameras and informed the resident that it had visited the neighbour. The landlord then started the process of engaging other agencies on 24 July 2025 when it created a “problem solving group” nomination form, with the intention of creating a coordinated, multi-agency ASB intervention. The landlord worked with the relevant agencies and put safety measures in place. These actions showed it recognised the emotional impact of the incidents and took the resident’s heightened anxiety into account.
17. The landlord updated the resident on 25 July 2025 in its final complaint response. It said that it would continue to manage the case in line with its action plan and update the resident regularly. Its actions were prompt and aligned with the action plan and its policy obligations.
18. The actions the landlord took from 21 May 2025 to 25 July 2025 showed that it followed its policy and responded actively to the ASB reports. It encouraged the resident to gather evidence and sought its own evidence through engagement with other agencies. It followed its ASB policy, adapted its approach when risk increased and progressed the case appropriately over the 9 week period. We therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

19. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has the authority to investigate alleged breaches of data protection law. The ICO is therefore the appropriate body to consider whether the landlord acted unlawfully when it shared information about the resident with her neighbour. This falls outside our remit. We have, however, considered whether the landlord addressed this issue appropriately in its complaint responses.
20. After the landlord disclosed information about the resident to her neighbour via voicemail, it took several steps to mitigate the risk. With the agreement of the resident, it visited the neighbour on 21 July 2025, explained its error and that sharing the information further could lead to legal action. It asked the neighbour to confirm that she had deleted the voicemail, which she agreed to do.
21. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the seriousness of the error and the significant impact it had on the resident and her partner. It said it had investigated the mistake with its data protection officer and considered that it was a confidentiality breach. It confirmed that it had addressed the issue with the colleague in question and to reduce the risk of recurrence and had shared guidance to its teams about sharing information.
22. To alleviate the resident’s reports of feeling vulnerable or at risk because of the confidentiality breach, the landlord offered to install security cameras at the resident’s property. It also engaged with the police and asked if they could speak with the resident and consider what reassurance they could provide.
23. The landlord did not dispute that it had acted erroneously. It acknowledged the breach, investigated the incident and spoke directly with the neighbour to prevent any further sharing of information. It addressed the issue internally to reduce future risk. In addition, it took practical steps in attempt to ease the resident’s concerns. These actions, together with its offer of £1,000 in compensation, demonstrated that the landlord recognised the impact of its mistake. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the stage 1 within 8 working days of receiving the complaint. It issued its final response within 15 days of the confidentiality breach which prompted the escalation.
25. The landlord’s responses appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns and confirmed the next steps. While there is no evidence that the landlord issued complaint acknowledgements, this did not impact the outcome for the resident, who received timely complaint responses. As such we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

27. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident.