The Community Housing Group Limited (202410088)

Decision
Case ID	202410088
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Community Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident in this case lives in the property with his partner, and we will refer to them both as ‘the resident’ in this report. Both individuals have had ongoing health issues since 2017, and the resident has PTSD. The resident received 2 malicious letters from their neighbour in December 2023, and they reported the incidents to the landlord and the police. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the reports and completed its complaints process in April 2024. They remained unhappy and brought their complaint to this Service in September 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Fitting a fireproof letterbox.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB.
There was Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the installation of the letterbox.
There was Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The ASB

The landlord did not address the reports of further ASB incidents correctly or in line with its published policy and caused avoidable uncertainty and distress to the resident. As a result, the landlord did not provide adequate resolution to this ongoing ASB issues or provide adequate reassurances to the resident.

The letterbox

The landlord acknowledged the impact the delays had on the resident and offered compensatory redress for this. The redress provided was appropriate for the level of failing. However, it did not identify or embed learning to prevent such failings from occurring in the future.

The complaint

The landlord provided timely responses to the resident, but these responses lacked clarity on how it was managing the ongoing ASB issues and how it was going to provide a lasting and meaningful resolution. Whilst the landlord did identify areas of learning, it did not identify failings in its handling of the ASB and as such did not explain how it would implement service improvements in this area. In addition, it highlighted the need for mediation in its responses but took an unreasonable amount of time to provide this.

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 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	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £400 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of reports of ASB. The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the previously offered compensation of £150 or pay this sum directly to the resident in compensation for the impact of its delays in installing the fireproof letterbox. The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the previously offered compensation of £50 or pay this sum directly to the resident in compensation for the impact of its failings in its complaint handling.	No later than 27 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

27 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £400 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the previously offered compensation of £150 or pay this sum directly to the resident in compensation for the impact of its delays in installing the fireproof letterbox.

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the previously offered compensation of £50 or pay this sum directly to the resident in compensation for the impact of its failings in its complaint handling.

No later than

27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Event prior to the complaint	Prior to the complaint logged in March 2024, the resident had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in December 2023. These complaints were also themed around the ASB issues and a request for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of erecting a fence in their front garden.
8 March 2024	This Service has not had sight of a copy of the resident’s complaint logged on this date but the landlord provided a detailed acknowledgment response and summarised the residents points. As there was no follow-up from the resident, we have concluded that the landlord captured all the points the resident wished to raise.
11 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and promised to issue a response by 22 March 2024. It also summarised the resident’s points as: The landlord had not provided an explanation of the 8-week delay to fitting the letterbox. The date of malicious communication incorrectly referred to as 18 December 2023. There was disagreement regarding ongoing safety issues. Lack of support from West Mercia Police regarding ASB. The landlord accusing the resident verbally abusing a neighbour. The alleged data breach. The delays in offering mediation. A disagreement with the level of compensation offered within a previous complaint regarding a fence.
21 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, and it said: It acknowledged the delay in installing the letterbox between 18 December 2023 and 13 February 2024, accepted this as a service failure, and offered £50 compensation. The ASB incident occurred on “18 December 2023”. Since then, confirmed that it gave updates to the resident on 22 December and 3 January. The landlord visited the perpetrator to address the reports, and it gave the resident with an update in a timely manner. It said it would not grant a rent‑free period from 18 December 2023 to 13 February 2024 because the investigation on 3 January found no ongoing risk and the resident chose not to stay in the property during that time. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction about delays from police partners but said the correct route for those concerns was the Police Complaints Authority, which the resident had already contacted. It stated it was sorry the situation caused distress and confirmed the £50 compensation offer linked to the letterbox delay. It had fitted a door safety chain as its records showed neighbour disputes involving inappropriate behaviour from multiple parties. It offered external mediation. It reviewed the previous compensation request and said: – It had already offered £150 as a goodwill gesture for a privacy fence. – It could not honour the “rent-free” request. – It noted the resident later said on 23 February they no longer wished to move, despite earlier discussions about moving costs. It acknowledged a delay in providing ASB Case Review (community trigger) information, which the resident had requested on 6 February, but which the landlord did not provide until 29 February. It accepted that it did not log verbal abuse reports as a Good Neighbour case and apologised for this service failing. It offered £50 compensation along with reiterating the mediation offer. It said the information shared did not constitute a data breach because the member of staff “did not disclose personal or detailed data.” A data breach would only apply if the third party chose to report it, but it said it would remind staff about data protection. It offered a total of £150 compensation, broken down as: – £50 for the letterbox installation delay. – £50 for the delay providing ASB Case Review information. – £50 for not logging the good neighbour case.
25 March 2024	The resident submitted an escalation request to the landlord, which said: The offer of £50 did not compensate for the impact of the delays in fitting the fireproof letterbox. There were 2 incidents of malicious letters, on 14 December and 15 December 2023, and the resident wanted clarification that this was an “oversight” and not an attempt by the landlord to “minimise something so terrible.” The view that there was “no ongoing safety risk” was the landlord’s “personal view”, when the resident was “terrified and could not sleep”. The landlord’s response to the letters and promises of action on the 18 December 2023 had “made them feel terrified.” The landlord’s promises had only “materialised 8 weeks later.” They were not aware the police officer who was liaising with the landlord had been assigned to the case, as they were previously dealing with a different officer. The officer who the landlord was working with didn’t come to see the resident or explain the situation at the time. The police sergeant visited the resident and said she was “surprised that the landlord had not involved” that police officer “sooner.” They did not “choose” to stay at their son’s house, but they felt too “frightened” to stay due to the delays installing the letterbox and the landlord had “breached its duty of care.” They would like the landlord to retract its accusations it made of the resident verbally abusing their neighbour. The Housing Officer had shared information about their neighbour and told them that the landlord had paid them compensation. Regarding mediation, they recognised that the landlord had apologised and said that “it should have offered it previously.” They added that they would be willing to mediate but the landlord’s “reluctance and inertia continue to hurt” them.
2 April 2024	The landlord issued its escalation request acknowledgement, and it said that it had received the resident’s handwritten letter dated the 25 March 2024. It understood the resident wished for the following points to be investigated again: The landlord not providing an explanation of 8-week delay to fitting the letterbox. The date of the malicious communication incorrectly referred to as the 18 December 2024. The disagreement with the statement of “no ongoing safety issues.” The resident said this is the “personal opinion” of a Community Housing representative. The West Mercia Police conduct regarding the ASB. The landlord accusing the resident of verbal abuse towards their neighbour. The landlord not fully acknowledging or admitting to the data information breach. The delays in the landlord facilitating mediation. The landlord would not consider the “denial of compensation” regarding the fence.
24 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, and it said: It met with the residents on the 9 April 2024 following their escalation request. It was escalating the complaint to the Chief Executive’s office. Regarding the 8-week delay in fitting the fireproof letterbox, it said that it recognises: The stage 1 did not provide adequate explanation for the delays. But receiving malicious letters meant that the response did require “more explanation.” There has been a “significant impact” on both residents, with the resident’s pre-existing PTSD. Although it was “of the opinion” that there was no ongoing threat to the resident’s safety, fitting a more secure, fireproof letter box would be beneficial. The “enhanced, secure letterbox is not a standard part of usual stock”, which was the cause for the delays. On 12 February 2024 the landlord installed the letterbox and for the distress and inconvenience the delays the resident experienced, offered £150. It identified learning for the future, such as “improving communication regarding repairs when there are delays sourcing the correct parts.” It apologised for incorrectly labelling the malicious note as 18 December 2023. It said the office received both notes Monday 18 December 2023 and it was an unintentional filing error. Regarding the risk of ongoing safety issues, it said: It understands that the experience was both upsetting and disturbing for the resident. It treated the reports of ASB “seriously” and dealt with them in line with published policy. The police and landlord determined that although the notes were “very unpleasant” they did not contain “direct threats.” It had visited the person who posted them, and they said incident “should not have happened” and they were aware that “further action would be taken” if they were to repeat the behaviour. Due to the reduced risk to the residents safety, the council advised that the situation “did not meet thresholds for an immediate need to be re-housed due to safety/risk.” But following the meeting on 9 April, it understood that the residents no longer wanted to move. Regarding police involvement, it said: The police and the landlord visited the perpetrator on 28 December 2023, and on 3 January 2024 it called the resident to tell them. It understood that the resident was not happy with the police, because they didn’t follow-up with the resident directly. The landlord informed the police of this. Regarding the resident’s reported behaviour, it said: It understood the resident did not agree with its interpretation of events and statements made in the stage 1 response. The resident also did not agree that they had been verbally abusive to their neighbours and considered it a “slur” and wished for the landlord to retract its statement. Following a review of the evidence, the landlord told the resident that it had said this because of a “conversation between the Housing Officer and the resident on 22 December 2023.” Where the resident had told the landlord that he had “threatened her that if she walked on the driveway/path he would take physical steps to protect himself and his property from her”. The landlord said a separate report about the incident supported this finding. It did not follow this up with the resident at the “request of the person” who told it. However, it acknowledged that the stage 1 response did not make this clear or provide additional context and that an explanation would have been helpful. An ASB Case Review process has now commenced, and the landlord is happy to support mediation if the resident would like to explore it. It would be attending a meeting scheduled for 3 May 2024. Regarding the alleged data breach, it said: Following a review, the landlord is satisfied that “there was no data protection breach because there was no personal or detailed information shared.” Regarding the delays in offering mediation, it said: The landlord understood that the resident had made no further reports of ASB or neighbour incidents since December 2023. But the resident had asked the council for a Case Review and the landlord will be attending the meeting with the parties involved. It was keen to address “any historic/unresolved community/ASB issues.” Mediation is always open to supporting the “appropriate circumstances” and it would suggest that the resident considers this option as part of the ASB Case Review. It offered a total compensation amount of £250, and it could not offer a rent rebate because of the “professional assessments concluded there was no direct threat or risk to you staying at your home during this period.” It offered the fireproof letterbox, to provide additional “peace of mind and not to indicate there was any risk to your safety.”
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought their complaint to this Service, and said they were still unhappy with the landlord’s handling of: The reported ASB and the incidents of the malicious letters. The level of compensation that the landlord had offered them, specifically regarding the impact and to compensate for the delays in installing the fireproof letterbox. The response from the police officer and their handling of the case. The landlord’s handling of the alleged data breach.

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	The landlord’s handling of the reported ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated and why

We understand the resident reported the incident of the malicious letters to the police. We can see the resident raised their concerns regarding the police officer’s response with West Mercia Police’s Professional Standards Committee. This Service has no jurisdiction to investigate complaint regarding police conduct and therefore we have not investigated this particular aspect of complaint further.
The resident also raised concerns about an alleged data protection breach, relating to information the landlord shared about a neighbour. While the landlord considered and addressed this matter within its complaint responses, the concern did not relate to the resident’s own personal data. Complaints regarding alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act are outside the jurisdiction of this Service and should be directed to the Information Commissioners Office.

What we have investigated

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
Evidence shows the landlord did not agree with the level of risk perceived by the resident following events in December 2023. While the resident reported feeling unsafe, the landlord did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment in response to these concerns.
During discussions with the resident, the landlord stated it sought to reassure them through the offer of the fireproof letterbox. The landlord also advised that the resident was at “no greater risk than prior to the incident” and confirmed that the emergency replacement of the letterbox was intended as a “measure to reassure”, rather than a response to an assessed safety risk.
The landlord told the resident that the situation had been assessed by police and that officer assigned to the case agreed with the landlords finding. They said this was because the neighbour had not posted any further letters. But this assessment did not provide adequate reassurance to the resident.
The resident reported that this response increased their concerns about personal safety and described experiencing elevated stress levels. As a result, the resident said that they felt unable to remain in the property overnight between 18 December 2023 and 12 February 2024 and stayed at their son’s home during this period.
The landlords own records demonstrate that it recognised shortcomings in its handling of early ASB reports. In a letter dated 20 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged that mediation should have been offered at an earlier stage and apologised for this oversight. While the landlord indicated it remained open to exploring ways to alleviate ongoing issues, it did not progress with mediation until 2025.
The landlord has advised this Service that it did not treat the reports of malicious letters as “ASB”, stating the resident’s concerns did not meet its threshold to open an ASB case and were instead managed under its Good Neighbour Procedure. However, this position is not clearly reflected in the landlord’s complaint responses, which repeatedly refer to “ASB incidents”, “ASB updates” and “partnership working in relation to ASB”. Additionally, it awarded compensation for “ASB-related service failings”.
We understand this confusion may have stemmed from historic references to ongoing ASB issues with the resident’s neighbours. This inconsistency, however, still created a lack of clarity regarding how the landlord was managing the residents reports and which procedures were being applied. This miscommunication ultimately resulted in avoidable uncertainty and confusion for the resident.
The landlord was aware of the resident reported vulnerabilities and concerns regarding personal safety but did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment or action plan in line with its procedures.
When considered cumulatively, this Service finds Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. An order has been made in respect of this.

Complaint	The handling of fitting a fireproof letterbox
Finding	Service failure

The landlord raised emergency works for the letterbox to be replaced on 18 December 2023, and it did not complete the replacement until 13 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the delays in replacing the letterbox and for the lack of contact to the resident during this time. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and increased its offer of compensation to £150. This amount was reasonable and proportionate to the impact of the service failing identified.
However, while the landlord states that outcomes had been identified, it did not clearly demonstrate what learning had been taken from the case and what changes had been or would be implemented to prevent a recurrence of similar delays or communication failures in the future. As such, while the compensation offered was reasonable, the landlord did not clearly demonstrate what it had learned from its failings. Therefore, we find Service Failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint responses demonstrate the resident raised a wide range of issues, including concerns about ASB, personal safety, communication with partner agencies, compensation and impact on health and wellbeing. While the landlord listed these issues within its responses and it gave comprehensive responses, the resident told us that they felt it was not always clear how each point had been considered.
The landlord’s complaint handling also lacked consistency in how the underlying issues were described. In its complaint responses, the landlord referred to ASB incidents and ASB-related actions, while later advising this Service that the matter had not been treated as ASB at the time. The resident indicated to us that this inconsistency was not clearly explained during the complaints process and therefore caused confusion about how their concerns were being managed.
Although the landlord acknowledged certain service failings and offered compensation, its responses did not consistently explain the rationale for key decisions, including why key requests were declined or why specific processes were not undertaken. The resident told us they were left feeling confused as to how the landlord had reached its conclusions.
The landlord identified areas for learning and acknowledged that aspects of its handling of elements of complaint could have been improved and offered £50 for these failings. However, areas of learning did not cover the landlord’s handling of the ASB report. As such, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made but we consider the sum of £50 to be proportionate to the level of time and trouble caused and so no further financial remedy is required.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While the landlord engaged well with the complaints process and provided timely responses at each stage, there were some shortcomings in clarity, consistency, and explanations. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 it has previously offered, if it has not already done so.

Learning

It is important to evidence a positive culture to learning and to use the complaints process to identify areas of improvement in communications. Within this case, the landlord identified some areas of learning but did not set out or commit to ways to prevent such failings happening in the future against all acknowledged failings.

Communication

Whilst the communication was prompt and professional, the investigation surfaced issues with clarity and repetition which the resident reported as having promoted uncertainty.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The original complaint was not provided to this Service. In order to provide a full and fair assessment of the evidence, it is important for the landlord to provide evidence of every stage of the complaint process.