Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202537579)

Decision
Case ID	202537579
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Eastlight Community Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her young daughter in a second-floor flat, within a large block owned by the landlord. She reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) by various neighbours on 11 August 2025. Within her report, the resident also complained that the landlord had failed to deal with previous ASB issues. The landlord started investigations and responded to say it had adhered to its policies and explained what it would do next.
2. The resident reported a leak from her bathroom ceiling on 23 August 2023, which was coming from the property above. It attended to this the same day and completed follow-on repairs in January and February 2024. The resident complained as she said it had not addressed the matter quickly enough. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered compensation of £75.

 

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
   1. ASB within the block.
   2. Damage to the bathroom ceiling following a leak.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

5. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damage to the bathroom ceiling.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

 

Summary of reasons

ASB within the block

6. The landlord handled the resident’s reports of August 2025 with care and in line with its policies. However, it did not adequately respond to her earlier report of July 2024 and did not recognise this in its complaint response.

Ceiling damage following a leak

7. The landlord did not complete follow-on repairs within its policy timeframes, however it acknowledged this, apologised and offered reasonable compensation.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint fully in line with its policy timescales and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 in compensation for its failure to adequately address the resident’s ASB report of July 2024. It must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 24 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £75 it offered for its handling of the ceiling repairs, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on it doing so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 July 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbours were deliberately damaging her car. The landlord responded to say this was not within its control and signposted her to the police.
11 to 15 August 2025	The resident reported noise nuisance from the property below and other neighbours in the block. She raised a complaint as she said the landlord had failed to deal with similar issues in the past, which she felt had contributed to the problem. She requested a management move.   The resident also complained about the time taken for the landlord to repair her bathroom ceiling following the leak.
18 August 2025	The landlord asked the resident to return noise diary sheets within 2 weeks, so it could investigate further. It provided information about its ASB procedure and what she could expect it to do.
11 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it set out the actions its ASB team had taken to date. It declined the resident’s request for a management move. It also apologised for her frustration over the ceiling repairs.
2 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint as she said the landlord had not resolved the situation, the problems had continued, and she felt it had dismissed her concerns.
16 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It gave an update on its progress and explained what it would do next regarding the ASB. It also offered £75 in compensation for delays with the ceiling repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and its response about the ceiling repairs. She said she would like the landlord to agree a management move.

 

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	ASB within the block
Finding	Service failure

 

What we have not investigated

9. The resident has reported incidents to the landlord since at least 2020, which she included in her complaint and her referral to us. We may not investigate matters which arose over 12 months before a resident’s complaint, therefore we will not look at historical issues here.
10. The resident told us further problems have arisen since her complaint, and the ASB remains ongoing. The landlord must have the opportunity to respond to ‘new’ complaint issues under its internal complaints procedure before we are able to investigate. We will therefore not consider those issues here. It is open to the resident to raise a new complaint. If she does so and receives a final response which she is unhappy with, she can ask us to open a new investigation.
11. This investigation will consider events between 10 July 2024 when the resident reported damage to her car, to the landlord’s final response of 16 October 2025.
12. The resident also told us she was concerned about the impact on her and her daughter’s mental health and wellbeing. If she believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected the family’s health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further.

What we have investigated

13. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2024 to report that her neighbours were intentionally damaging her car in the designated parking area. It responded on 19 July to say it could not take any action because it did not manage the car park, and it advised her to report criminal damage to the police. The resident did so, and she informed the landlord of this. She continued to report car park incidents to the landlord between August and October. It responded on 15 November to repeat its earlier position.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the police in the first instance, given she was, essentially, reporting criminal damage. However, its ASB policy did not prevent it from considering its own powers to investigate the issues alongside any police action. Its policy states it expects its residents to adhere to their tenancy terms regarding behaviour and conduct, not just within the properties but in the wider community. The landlord’s failure to consider this meant it missed the opportunity to give additional support.
15. The resident reported new ASB incidents to the landlord on 11, 12, and 15 August 2025. These included noise nuisance from the neighbour directly below, who had moved in 2 weeks earlier. The resident also said she was experiencing noise problems and harassment from other households. The landlord replied on 18 August to request more details and asked her to complete diary sheets for 2 weeks. It also completed a risk assessment which found the resident was at ‘medium’ risk. These actions were all in line with its ASB policy.
16. Within her reports, the resident raised her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had failed to address historical issues, which she felt had allowed the new problems to arise. The resident also complained about its November 2024 response regarding her car. She requested a management move as she said the collective problems were causing distress to her and her daughter.
17. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 September 2025, it said it had adhered to its policy to date, but it needed more evidence of the ASB before it could take any specific enforcement action. The landlord asked the resident to return her diary sheets and said it would close the case if she did not do so within 2 weeks. It repeated its position from 2024 regarding her reports about damage to her car.
18. The landlord also said the resident did not meet the threshold for a management move. Its direct lets policy states it will only offer a move if this is the only viable way to reduce the risk of harm, and it will consider this option as a “last resort”. The landlord’s response was therefore fair as it did not identify such issues in its risk assessment, and it was taking active steps to address the resident’s reports.
19. The resident reported cannabis dealing and use within the block on 12 September 2025. The landlord contacted her on 17 and 18 September to request more detail, and it advised her to report this to the police in the meantime. It also suggested an appointment for the following week and asked if this was convenient. The resident did not respond to this or any of the landlord’s further attempts to contact her.
20. The landlord visited the resident at home on 2 October 2025 to check on her wellbeing. When she did not answer the door, it contacted local hospitals to check for any recent admissions concerning the resident or her daughter. This shows the landlord’s commitment to the family’s safety, despite it not having any more evidence of the reported ASB.
21. The resident escalated her complaint that day as she said the landlord had dismissed her concerns and had “fobbed her off”. She also said one of the neighbours had a firearm. The landlord reported this to the police immediately, and suggested they conduct joint patrols within the estate, which the police agreed to. This demonstrates that it was alert to the potential seriousness of the problem and its actions were proportionate.
22. The resident provided completed diary sheets on 9 October 2025. The landlord emailed her that day to confirm it had opened 4 separate ASB cases and intended to issue warnings to the relevant households. It contacted her again the following week to explain it would raise the issues within the estate in an upcoming community safety meeting with the local authority. It also explained how the resident could request an ASB case review (community trigger).
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 October 2025. It confirmed its actions to date and said it had referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team for further support. It urged her to continue reporting incidents to its ASB team and the police.
24. The evidence shows the landlord took all reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports from August 2025, and it fully considered its safeguarding responsibilities. Its responses were empathetic, and there is evidence it signposted her to other agencies such as Victim Support and The Samaritans. The resident’s case is still open, and the landlord has provided evidence of its continued attempts to resolve the matters.

The landlord’s actions were appropriate in accordance with its policies and the resident’s specific situation, with the exception of the issue regarding her car in 2024. It repeated its incorrect advice both at the time, and in its complaint responses. We have ordered it to pay £100 in compensation in line with our remedies guidance for failings of this nature.

Complaint	Ceiling damage following a leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

25. The resident reported a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling from the flat above on 23 August 2023. Whilst this was 2 years before she raised her complaint, as the landlord responded to the complaint, we have used our discretion to also investigate the matter on this occasion.
26. The resident said water had run into the light fitting. The landlord had already fixed the leak in the upstairs flat during an emergency appointment earlier that day. It visited the resident the same day to clear the light fitting and check this was safe, in line with its repairs policy timescales for urgent reports.
27. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023 to report water damage to the ceiling plasterwork. She also said the bathroom light and shaver socket had not been working properly since the leak. The landlord tried to inspect the bathroom on 16 October but could not access the property. It visited within its repairs policy timeframe of 28 days, although it is unclear whether it had confirmed the appointment with the resident first.
28. The landlord inspected the ceiling on 23 October 2023 and raised a job for replastering, which it completed on 22 January 2024. It then fixed the light and socket on 28 February. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the issues presented a risk to the resident’s safety or impacted on her use of the bathroom pending the repairs. Nonetheless, the landlord completed the works 3 months outside its 28-day timeframe and its records do not explain the reasons for the delays.
29. In the resident’s complaint of 11 August 2025, she said the landlord had not responded quickly enough to the leak and follow-on repairs. Its stage 1 response said it was sorry she felt this way but it did not address the issue any further. However, the landlord reviewed this when investigating the resident’s escalation request. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for the delays and offered £75 in compensation.
30. The landlord’s compensation aligns with our remedies guidance for situations where there has been a service failure involving some delay, but there has been no adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, the landlord’s response and compensation was reasonable and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

 

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

 

31. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. If it needs to extend its response time it will explain why and give a revised deadline, which will not exceed an additional 10 working days without good reason. This is in line with the Code.
32. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 August 2025 to extend its stage 1 response date to 12 September, as it needed more time to complete its investigation. It then responded one day earlier than its revised deadline. Both its extension and response times were in line with its policy and the Code.
33. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response within the required 20-working-day timeframe. Therefore, there was no complaint handling failure by the landlord.

 

Learning

Record keeping

34. The landlord may wish to review how it logged and responded to the resident’s reports about the car damage. This may help to ensure that it identifies potential reports of ASB and assesses these appropriately in future cases.

Communication

35. The landlord communicated sensitively with the resident and kept her updated on a regular basis.