Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202506229)

Decision
Case ID	202506229
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in an end-of-terrace house with her children. Her complaint relates to a long-term dispute with her next-door neighbour. She has various concerns about the neighbour’s activities. She says their behaviour is intimidating. In March 2024, the police intervened after an alleged threat to the resident’s life.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.
2. Decision to investigate the resident for an alleged tenancy breach.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB case.
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to investigate the resident for an alleged tenancy breach.
3. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s ASB case

The landlord’s communication was not consistent with its ASB policy. At times, it showed a lack of proactivity and its record keeping was inadequate. Its approach caused distress for the resident. The landlord has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right.

The decision to investigate the resident

The landlord made an appropriate decision to investigate an alleged tenancy breach in line with its ASB policy. Its related communications to the resident were clear and adequate.

The complaint handling

The landlord considered its own complaint handling at each stage. Having done so, it took reasonable steps to address any procedural delays or failures it identified. There is no indication it overlooked any other failures which adversely impacted the resident.

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 provided by a relevant senior manager. 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 £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB case. 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	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about its investigation into the parking/vehicle issues that she reported in October 2024. The landlord must share a copy of its update with the Ombudsman.	No later than 08 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy with the way it had handled a counter allegation of ASB against her. She referenced years of harassment and threats from the neighbour. She cited a lack of action and support by the landlord. The resident’s other key points were: The landlord should clarify the nature of her alleged tenancy breach. It should not rely on the police to take action against the neighbour. There had been recent issues with the neighbour’s vehicles. She was unable to enjoy her home due to the neighbour’s ASB.
25 February 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed specific points the resident had raised. It said she had disputed her alleged tenancy breach and referenced ASB issues over the past 4 months. It also said she did not know what was happening in relation to these issues. The landlord did not identify any ASB handling failures or uphold the resident’s complaint.
Around 22 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. We have not seen a copy of her request.
9 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It addressed the same complaint issues from stage 1. It focused on the alleged tenancy breach. It said it had previously closed its related case. Overall, the landlord said it had not found any evidence of failures on its part. It did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her complaint form, the resident told us she was worried about her family’s safety. She referenced various different ASB issues. She wanted the landlord to obtain an injunction against the neighbour. In November 2025, she told us that she wanted the landlord to be more proactive.

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	Handling of the resident’s ASB case
Finding	Maladministration

We have seen evidence of the landlord’s ASB case handling from March 2024 onwards. This includes its risk assessment and action plan. It also includes ASB case notes and contact records. Overall, there is no indication that the landlord was responsible for any case handling failures in the period following the alleged death threat to the resident.
For example, the landlord’s relevant ASB policy (effective June 2023) says it will complete a risk assessment and create an action plan with the reporting resident. It will also update them every month about their case. Significantly, it will only take legal action (against an alleged perpetrator) if it is reasonable and proportionate to do this.
We focused on events between October 2024 and May 2025. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident referenced a lack of updates and/or action (by the landlord) during this period. There is some evidence to support this version of events. She raised her complaint after the landlord contacted her about a counter allegation from the neighbour.
Between 4 and 11 October 2024 the landlord was handling the resident’s existing ASB case in line with its policy. For example, it took the following actions during this period:
1. Reviewed video footage from the resident.
2. Held a meeting with the resident and her advocate.
3. Contacted the police for an update about their ongoing investigation.
4. Contacted the local council to find out what actions had arisen from a previous multi-agency ASB case review meeting.
During the landlord’s meeting with the resident, the parties discussed various issues. For example, the resident reported there were ongoing problems with the neighbour’s vehicles and parking. The landlord told her it could investigate these matters. This was a reasonable approach. However, from its various records, there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord subsequently acted on its commitment.
For example, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered the neighbour’s vehicle related obligations, or that it promptly raised the resident’s concerns with them. The resident’s concerns were important to her. Ultimately, the landlord has not shown that it treated these seriously. Its approach was inadequate and may have added to the resident’s distress.
Its records suggest the landlord did not take any action on the resident’s ASB case between 12 October 2024 and 31 March 2025. It should have updated her at least every month in line with its policy. There is no indication that it received a reply from the council or chased the council for a response subsequently. The landlord’s communication and/or record keeping were inadequate. It also showed a lack of proactivity.
In mitigation, the landlord implemented a good neighbour agreement (GNA) in mid-December 2024. This applied to the neighbour and the resident. It was intended to deter further ASB incidents. This was a reasonable and proportionate step in line with the landlord’s policy. Given the GNA, it cannot fairly be said that the landlord didn’t take any action to help the resident during the above referenced period of around 6 months.
During the period in question, there is no indication the landlord missed any clear opportunities to escalate its response against the neighbour. In other words, there is a lack of compelling evidence to suggest that it could have reasonably taken legal action against them.
Overall, the landlord’s communication was not consistent with its ASB policy. At times, it showed a lack of proactivity and its record keeping was inadequate. Its approach caused distress for the resident. It has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Decision to investigate the resident for an alleged tenancy breach
Finding	No maladministration

In December 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident about an alleged tenancy breach. It said it received a report which alleged that she had made numerous calls to third-party agencies about the alleged victim. It said the resident may have breached her tenancy and it was investigating the matter. This was appropriate action in line with its policy.
This is because the landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It shows the landlord will investigate any ASB reports which involve a potential breach of its tenancy terms. It says the landlord will not investigate reports that do not involve a potential breach.
Subsequently, the resident asked the landlord for more information about the report it had received. The landlord did not provide this. It was not obliged to for data protection reasons. We considered the landlord’s letter and the parties’ subsequent interactions about it. Ultimately, there is no evidence of any related failures by the landlord.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it had closed its case about the alleged breach. We have not seen any information to the contrary. Following its notification letter, there is no indication the landlord took any related action against the resident. This suggests the information in its stage 2 response was accurate.
Overall, the landlord made an appropriate decision to investigate the alleged breach in line with its policy. Its related communications were clear and adequate. As a result, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord. If it had not acted on the ASB report it received, the landlord may have risked an adverse finding from the Ombudsman.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective July 2024) says it aligns with the Code.
The Code says landlords must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, a landlord must issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement . A landlord must issue a response within 20 working days of an acknowledgement at stage 2.
In this case, the landlord has not supplied copies of its complaint acknowledgements. However, we have seen evidence of its related complaint handling at each stage. Based on the periods between 5 and 11 February 2025, and 11 and 25 February 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with the Code. This was appropriate.
The evidence suggests the resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2025 and the landlord acknowledged it 10 working days later. This timeframe was not consistent with the Code. However, there is no evidence to show the resident experienced a significant adverse impact due to the delay. For example, there is no indication that the delay prompted her to chase the landlord.
In line with the Code, the landlord should have issued a stage 2 response within 25 working days of the resident’s escalation request. Based on the period between 22 April and 9 May 2025 (12 working days), it did this. Ultimately, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within an appropriate timescale.
In its response, the landlord accepted that its stage 2 acknowledgement was delayed. It apologised to the resident for this. This was a reasonable approach. Given the limited duration and impact of the delay, we find an apology was sufficient to put things right.
Overall, the landlord considered its own complaint handling at each stage. Having done so, it took reasonable steps to address any procedural delays or failures it identified. There is no indication it overlooked any other failures which adversely impacted the resident. Given the above, we find it did enough to put things right for her. This represents reasonable redress by the landlord.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were record keeping issues in aspects of the landlord’s operations. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.

Communication

Some aspects of the landlord’s communication were inadequate. It should keep residents updated about issues that are important to them. If the landlord believes it will take time to investigate/respond to a matter, it should set the resident’s expectations at the outset.