Arhag Housing Association Limited (202330350)

Decision
Case ID	202330350
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Arhag Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 February 2026

Background

The resident has complained to the landlord about various issues. These include noise disturbances from children playing with balls which could constitute antisocial behaviour (ASB). She wants the landlord to review the communal signage relating to ball games and CCTV footage more often. She also wants her patio gate replaced. She lives with her adult daughter, who has acted as her representative in her dealings with the landlord. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of ASB, requests to monitor CCTV more and review the communal signage.
2. A request for a new patio gate.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, requests to monitor CCTV more and review the communal signage.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a request for a new patio gate.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB, requests to monitor CCTV more and review the communal signage

The landlord responded to reports of ASB, the CCTV and signage fairly and reasonably.

Request for a new patio gate

The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s safety concerns about the patio gate, which meant she raised the issue again a year later.

The complaint

The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 panel report; however, this was due to the panel needing more information from the resident. It also kept the resident updated about when to expect the report.

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 12 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of a request for a new patio gate. 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 12 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

12 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of a request for a new patio gate.

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

12 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider updating its ASB policy to include a section on what is not considered to be ASB. It should also consider whether its needs to remind its staff of its ASB categorisation.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 June 2022	The resident raised concerns that her patio gate was a different colour to the rest of the gates in the complex. She also asked whether the CCTV cameras facing the entrance and driveway were active and if the landlord had the capacity to check the footage out of hours. The landlord said its surveyor would look into the gate concerns at the next visit and it was due to repair the electrics affecting the camera.
26 June 2023	The resident raised concerns about the ball games causing noise nuisance. She said she wanted the ball signage reviewed and for the landlord to check the cameras to find who was responsible. This was why she wanted the patio gate changed and she said the council said the gate was not suitable for her.
3 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: The gate was a safety concern as children trespassed into her patio to play hide and seek or collect balls and wanted it replaced. There was noise disturbance from ball games. Recently one hit her window while she was napping and frightened her. As a result, she wanted it to review the “no ball” signage. She wanted the landlord to check the CCTV.
7 July 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: Its previous repairs inspections found no concerns with the gate. However, it was happy to re-inspect. It would review the CCTV footage and signage request.
7 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she: Got a second opinion from the council housing safety team who assessed and inspected her property. They found there were not enough security measures in place for a vulnerable tenant, and the gate was one of the recommendations. She informed her housing officer who raised an order, but she had heard nothing since. She told the landlord to inspect the gate. Wanted an update about the CCTV and signage at the next stage.
3 August 2023	The landlord held a resident scrutiny panel meeting at stage 2 to discuss the concerns. It shared its findings report on 20 August 2023. The resident was unable to attend the meeting. The landlord noted it: Was aware of ball games in the car park. It had communicated this to other residents and carried out face to face door knocking to all the households with young families to advise them not to use the car park in this way. Did not continuously monitor the CCTV but would review footage if given a date and time frame. Agreed to replace the signage. Replaced the neighbour’s gate as it was unrepairable. Having inspected the resident’s gate, it found it to be in working order and not in need of replacement. But noted it had not been provided with the council’s report so had no supporting evidence it posed a safety risk.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us in January 2024. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace the gate.

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	Reports of ASB, requests to monitor CCTV more and review the communal signage
Finding	No maladministration

When considering complaints about ASB, it is not our role to decide whether the incidents have taken place as reported. Rather our role is to determine whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will apply a risk rating to each reported case of ASB. The rating represents the urgency of the case and how quickly an initial visit or contact should be done. For low risk cases it says it will respond in 5 to 10 working days and 2 to 5 working days for medium risk cases. Its policy outlines that communal misuse includes nuisance children and ball games. The Government guidance for ASB for social housing tenants’ states that some behaviour such as children’s play while may cause nuisance may not be regarded as ASB.
On 26 June 2023, the resident reported that ball games in the car park were causing noise disturbances. As a result, she wanted the landlord to check its CCTV and review the signage for ball games. The landlord promptly responded offering to send a letter to residents about children accessing the ground floor patios demonstrating it was taking her concerns seriously. However, it is not clear what other actions, if any the landlord took at this stage before the resident made her complaint. It is also not clear whether this was logged as an ASB report and whether it was categorised in line with its policy. There should be clear records to support the risk category as it dictates the response times.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it made a commitment to review the CCTV footage and the signage request after a visit. Internal records confirm that the CCTV was working but it could not monitor it 24 hours a day. It also noted it could not identify the children nor share any footage of children due to data protection. It confirmed it had already sent a letter to residents the previous week about children playing in the car park. We have not seen the letter so we cannot establish exactly when this was sent. However, it appears to have been within 10 working days which was a reasonable timeframe. It also said it would call other tenants who were known to have children to remind them of not playing ball games in the car park. Again, this was a reasonable action for it to take.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately explained that it could not monitor the CCTV on a 24 hour basis, however if provided with a timeframe and date it would review the footage. This was a reasonable approach given the resources needed to review footage. It stated that it had provided communications to all residents about ball games in the car park. It also carried out visits to all households with young families to advise that the car park should not be used as a playground. This was a reasonable response to the concerns raised and demonstrated that it was committed to finding a resolution for her.
The landlord also agreed to replace the signage, again this was a reasonable action given the concerns raised. However, after the complaints process ended, the new signage was not installed until approximately 8 months later and we note the resident chased for updates on this. We see the landlord appropriately explained there was a purchasing delay, however no further details have been provided so it is unclear what caused this. It also stated contractor illness contributed to this delay.
While we note there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the landlord categorised the ASB in line with its policy, overall, its actions after the reports were made were logical, fair and reasonable. We have not identified that a lack of categorisation negatively impacted the landlord’s handling of the reports. As a result, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the ASB, the request to review the CCTV footage and review the communal signage.

Complaint	A request for a new patio gate
Finding	Service failure

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” This would include the patio gate as it is attached to the boundary wall. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy further reflects this.
The resident raised concerns about the patio gate initially in 2022. The landlord said its surveyor would look into this at the next visit, but there are no records after this, so it is not clear what the surveyor found or recommended. There is no evidence that the resident was updated of any outcome either. This was not appropriate. There should be a clear audit trial to demonstrate what happened and this indicates an issue with its record keeping.
In June 2023 the resident again raised concerns about the gate, saying children often climbed over it and she believed this created a safety risk. She said the council were aware it was not suitable. Having looked into the resident’s concerns, the landlord found that because of changes in staff there had been no progress since its last inspection. It said it would escalate this to look at possible options, which was appropriate for it to do. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said a previous inspector had concluded there were no concerns with the gate. It is not clear when this was or whether this was related to the previous surveyor visit. However, it appears the resident was not updated about this and the landlord failed to recognise it had not properly communicated this with her. It was positive that it agreed to re-inspect the gate and make a new decision.
The resident advised the landlord that the council had assessed the property for security and made a recommendation about the gate. She said she raised it with her housing officer who raised an order, however there is no supporting evidence for this. On 13 July 2023, it assured her it takes the safety of residents seriously and it would review whether the gate needed upgrading for safety reasons.
In its stage 2 panel meeting, the landlord concluded after an inspection, that the gate was in working order and it replaced the neighbour’s gate as it was unrepairable. It also appropriately agreed to review this if the resident was able to provide evidence to support the council’s assessment about the safety risk. While we understand this was disappointing for the resident to hear, it was reasonable for it to rely on its own findings during its inspection and also remain open to reviewing new evidence. We note that after the complaints process ended the landlord contacted the police and council to arrange joint visits. We also understand the resident benefits from her gate being within the gated controlled car park and the neighbour’s gate is not.
As providers of social housing, it is necessary for landlords to make the most effective use of their resources, and this will often involve carrying out repairs to defects wherever possible, rather than a replacement. Therefore, the landlord’s overall approach was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
We highlighted above there was a period of one year where the resident raised concerns and there was a lack of evidence to support what action the landlord took. It is unclear if it kept the resident updated. While we have not seen evidence to suggest the resident chased this during the year, she did have to raise the matter again. As such we have made a finding of service failure. Our remedies guidance sets out a payments range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which broadly aligns with the Code however at stage 2 it will conduct an appeal panel and aims to provide a response within 20 days.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in accordance with its policy and the Code. At stage 2 it conducted a panel meeting on 3 August 2023. As the panel raised questions, some of the delay was due to the landlord waiting for responses from the resident. It sent the final outcome on 20 August 2023. The evidence suggests the resident did not receive the outcome as she chased for it in October 2023. While this is not disputed, we have seen the landlord’s email of 20 August 2023.
Overall, the landlord took 31 days from escalation to provide its response. While this was outside of the prescribed timeframes in its policy, there is evidence it kept the resident updated about when it would share its response. Given the circumstances that the panel had additional questions and it kept her updated, this was appropriate and in line with its policy. As a result, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

The landlord should consider revisiting its ASB policy to remind staff about the importance of categorising ASB complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was lacking in places. It did not provide us with the communications it shared with other residents about ball games. Its records from 2022 suggest a surveyor looked at the gate but it has not provided us with this report.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was mostly appropriate particularly in 2023. However, the evidence for 2022 is insufficient to conclude that the resident was appropriately updated.