Derive RP Limited (202423240)

Decision
Case ID	202423240
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Derive RP Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair. She is a carer for a member of her household who is also disabled. The property is owned by the landlord who has appointed a managing agent to provide certain housing services.
The resident contacted the managing agent on 22 July 2024 to report antisocial behaviour (ASB). On 3 August she contacted it to report that a member of her household had been assaulted by a neighbour. On 13 September the resident also reported that she was being disturbed by her neighbour banging about above her. She was also concerned that they were involved in drugs. She was dissatisfied with the managing agent’s response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of ASB
2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

The landlord failed to adhere to its ASB policy.
Its risk assessment and action plan failed to reflect the resident’s lived experience and individual needs.
It failed to provide evidence that it collected and reviewed the resident’s diary sheets.

Handling of associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the managing agent to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlord must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The managing agent 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 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Take Specific Action order If it has not already done so in the last 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident to set out its position regarding her ongoing reports of ASB. If it is currently investigating reports of ASB or decides to open a new case it should carry out an up to date risk assessment and action plan. The outcomes should be set out in writing to the resident.	No later than 08 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 September 2024	The resident phoned the managing agent to complain about its response to her reports of ASB.
18 September 2024	The managing agent wrote to the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It said it would respond by 30 September.
26 September 2024	The managing agent wrote to the resident to confirm that during its visit to her on 20 September she asked to withdraw her complaint. It confirmed the complaint was closed.
3 January 2025	The resident called the managing agent to raise her dissatisfaction with its response to her reports of ASB. She said that: she’d completed diary sheets which were not picked up as agreed she’d tried to contact her housing officer many times without success. They’d also cancelled several appointments with her her neighbour above was causing ASB by banging and shouting. She was concerned that another neighbour was selling drugs
7 January 2025	The managing agent wrote to the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It said it would respond by 17 January.
14 January 2025	The managing agent issued its stage 1 complaint response as follows: ASB diaries had been logged. It was also working with local partners, had completed property inspections and had carried out interviews it had investigated an allegation of assault when the resident reported drug dealing she never said which address it related to and now that she had it would investigate the housing officer acted in line with its ASB policy and procedure on occasions calls to the resident had been missed or completed later than scheduled. It apologised for instances when the officer had not advised that an appointment would not be met.
14 January 2025	Following contact from the resident we wrote to the landlord to ask that it raise a stage 2 complaint and issue a response by 20 February.
17 January 2025	The managing agent wrote to the resident to acknowledge receipt of her stage 2 complaint. It said it would respond by 31 January.
31 January 2025	A file note of the managing agent’s visit to the resident the day before said she’d decided not to pursue her complaint. On 11 February the resident called the managing agent to confirm she wished to resubmit her complaint.
17 February 2025	The managing agent wrote to the resident to confirm it had raised a stage 2 complaint and would respond by 11 March. On 6 March it wrote to her to extend the deadline to 8 April
28 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint, the main points being: it set out the outcomes to the resident’s reports of ASB its expert witnesses had attended but had not witnessed any ASB it set out next steps which included a review of the ASB with the resident and installation of CCTV
7 July 2025	The resident phoned us to report that the ASB was ongoing. She said that due to her disability she could only talk to the managing agent by phone and they were not responding.
3 December 2025	During a call with us the resident advised the ASB caused by her neighbour above is ongoing.

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 managing agent is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The managing agent’s file note says the resident called to report ASB on 22 July 2024. It said her housing officer was visiting that day and would bring diary sheets for her to complete. However, the following day the resident called to say they had not arrived. She requested a new appointment. Its records note the appointment was rearranged to 26 July. There’s no evidence the appointment went ahead.
The managing agent’s ASB policy says it will log reports of noise and make an appointment for the officer within 5 working days. During the appointment the officer will discuss the case, complete a risk assessment and action plan and issue diary sheets. There’s no evidence that the managing agent complied with its ASB policy which is a failure.
An internal email dated 9 August 2024 says the resident called to report that a member of her household was assaulted by a neighbour on 3 August. She said the incident was reported to the police. The managing agent said it would review the incident and call her to update.
The managing agent’s ASB policy says situations posing immediate risk to health are classed as level 4 incidents. These incidents will be escalated to the neighbourhood manager as soon as it’s notified of the incident. The manager will assess risk and allocate the case to an officer. The complainant will be contacted within 1 working day. There’s no evidence it complied with its policy by carrying out a review and calling the resident to update her.
A file note dated 14 August 2024 says the resident called the out of hours team to report that her neighbour was being aggressive towards her. She said she would call back the following day during office hours.
The managing agent’s ASB policy says level 4 personal incidents reported out of hours will be referred to the on call manager to review and instigate initial actions such as calling the police. There’s no evidence that the managing agent sought to clarify the nature of the incident to decide on an appropriate response.
During a call with the managing agent on 13 September 2024 the resident reported that she was being disturbed by her neighbour above banging around. She was also concerned they were involved in drug use. She asked to be moved to an alternative property. It offered to open an ASB case but the resident was concerned the neighbour would find out. On the same day the managing agent engaged in an exchange of emails with the neighbour which shows it made her aware of the reports of noise. However, it’s not clear what form this took as it’s the resident’s response only.
On 16 September 2024 the resident called the managing agent to complain about its response to her reports of ASB. On 20 September the landlord visited the resident to discuss her report.
The file note of the visit recorded that when the noise from the property above was bad the resident slept in the car. It noted her assertion that there had been previous threats which were reported to the police.
The managing agent completed a risk assessment and action plan. While this was in line with its policy there’s no evidence it considered the risk posed to the resident by her sleeping in her car. This was particularly relevant given her disability.
The action plan failed to set out how it would respond to any diary sheets submitted by the resident. Furthermore the space next to the vulnerability score was blank. Therefore the managing agent missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had considered the impact on the resident based on her individual circumstances.
An entry on the ASB log dated 27 September 2024 shows the resident called to report noise from banging from above. The managing agent attended but did not witness a disturbance.
A file note says that on 7 October 2024 the resident called the managing agent to check the time of her appointment with her housing officer that day. It advised that their car had broken down so it would need to rearrange. It would’ve been reasonable for it to have proactively communicated with the resident to manage her expectations.
The managing agent’s records show it visited the resident on 15 October 2024. It said that when she contacted its out of hours witness service she should ask them to visit her first to try to witness what she was hearing. She was reluctant to do so in case it identified her as the complainant. The managing agent confirmed it would visit the neighbour above. There’s no evidence it did so which was inappropriate.
On 25 October 2024 the resident called the managing agent to say she expected her housing officer to visit that day. She was told they had tried to visit but there was no answer. She said she’d been in all day and no one had been. While we do not doubt the resident’s account there’s no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore we cannot make a determination on this point.
The ASB log says the managing agent visited the resident on 1 November 2024. She was not at home so it left more diary sheets in the post box for her to collect. On 6 November the resident called to report she was “very annoyed and frustrated” with the visits not taking place. This was because no one had collected her diary sheets.
On 11 November 2024 the managing agent called the resident to discuss ongoing reports of noise from her neighbour above. It agreed to collect the diary sheets the next day and carry out a full case review in line with the action plan. The resident said she was unavailable the next day so it agreed to drop off new diary sheets only.
There’s no evidence it carried out a case review as agreed. There’s also no evidence that it had collected any diary sheets to date. Without reviewing the diaries it could not be sure it’s response was appropriate. It could’ve supported the resident to return the diary sheets using another method. This would’ve been in line with its ASB policy which says it enables ASB to be reported easily. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
The evidence shows that between 12 November and 19 December 2024 telephone and in person appointments were unable to proceed due to issues with availability by both parties.
During a call to the managing agent on 19 December 2024 the resident said she’d been filling out diary sheets for 3 months but no one had collected them. This was evidence of an ongoing failure as set out above.
On 7 January 2025 the managing agent attended the property to try to witness noise reported by the resident. It did not witness any evidence of a disturbance.
The managing agent’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 January 2025 said it had reviewed the case. It said there’d been allegations of assault which had been reported to the police who’d not taken further action. We’ve not seen evidence that it responded to the incident including contacting the police and/or carrying out interviews. It failed to respond to our email of 26 November 2025 asking for evidence of its response.
It said that when the resident reported drug use she had not identified which property was responsible. It’s unclear whether the managing agent asked her for this information as part of its investigation.
The tone of its response was defensive. It showed a lack of regard for the resident’s lived experience. It suggested that her reporting of incidents cast doubt on the legitimacy of the issues. The resident was vulnerable and had made repeated requests for her diary sheets to be collected. It put the onus on her to evidence her reports and failed to consider how it could support her to do so. Its approach was not in line with its ASB policy which says it understands the challenges people face when reporting ASB. It aims to provide comprehensive support for residents.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The managing agent appropriately acknowledged and apologised for instances where appointments with the housing officer were not met. While this was positive it failed to consider putting things right in line with its compensation policy. Its policy says it can consider discretionary compensation for failure to provide a service.
An internal email dated 14 January 2025 said the resident called and was upset about ongoing ASB. She said she was losing sleep which was making her unwell. It said the housing officer was on leave and asked someone to respond in her absence. There’s no evidence it did so. This was particularly inappropriate given the resident’s reports of the impact on her health.
On 28 January 2025 the managing agent attended to witness the resident’s report of loud banging but could not hear anything of concern.
An internal email dated 31 January 2025 said the managing agent visited the resident the previous day in line with its stage 1 response. It failed to respond to our email of 26 November 2025 asking for evidence, such as a file note, of the visit. This has impacted on our assessment of its response.
On 4 February 2025 the managing agent attended to witness the resident’s report of loud banging but it did not hear anything.
An internal email dated 11 February 2025 said the resident called and was crying because the managing agent still had not collected the diary sheets. She said she “felt ignored.” The managing agent failed to respond to our email of 26 November asking for evidence of when it collected diary sheets.
On 14 March 2025 the managing agent attended to witness the resident’s report of stamping from above but it did not hear anything.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 28 March 2025 said it had investigated reports of cannabis use but there was no evidence. We’ve not seen evidence of this investigation.
It set out next steps in its investigation into the resident’s complaint about her neighbour. It arranged to visit the resident on 9 May 2025. A file note on the day of the appointment said it was rearranged to 13 May at the resident’s request. It’s unclear if the appointment went ahead. There’s also no evidence that it liaised with the police or carried out further enquiries with other residents as set out in its response.
The failures in this case amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a managing agent should respond to complaints. The managing agent’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The managing agent provided its stage 1 complaint response 7 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident made her stage 2 complaint on 11 February 2025. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 March to extend the deadline to 8 April. It issued its response on 28 March which was 33 working days after receiving the complaint. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
There was no maladministration in the managing agent’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord should consider how it will ensure ASB risk assessments and action plans are tailored to the case and the resident’s individual circumstances. This will ensure they effectively inform its ASB case management process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As set out above there are examples where the landlord has failed to provide detailed records, such as file notes, for the purpose of our investigation.
In conducting our investigations we rely on documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to establish what events took place and reach conclusions. The landlord has failed to respond to our request for additional evidence making it difficult to assess its response to the reports of ASB in all cases.

Communication

The landlord’s communication regarding appointments with the resident lacked consistency.