Abri Group Limited (202450403)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202450403

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Abri Group Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

27 February 2026

Background

  1. The resident raised concerns about several neighbours’ dogs barking in November 2023. She said the issue has caused a breakdown in relations with one neighbour and led to incidents of verbal abuse and harassment. The landlord is aware that the resident has several health conditions.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found that there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. The landlord took several reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord was clear on the steps it could take to resolve the matter. However, the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy at any stage. It identified this failing in its stage 1 response but did not adequately put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord appropriately followed the extension process outlined in its complaints policy at both stages of the complaint. It provided both of its responses within the timeframes outlined in its extension requests. Its offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

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 pay the resident £50 to recognise the likely distress caused to the resident by the failure in its handling of her 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

27 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling has been made on the basis that the £100 offered at stage 2 is paid to the resident. We recommend that the landlord pays the resident this amount if it has not already done so.

We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any new or ongoing ASB concerns she may have.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

23 March 2025

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of dogs barking and ASB from a neighbour. She said she had experienced 2 years of “hell and torture” and felt that the landlord did not care.

25 April 2025

The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint as it found it had delayed in allocating one of the resident’s ASB cases and had failed to complete a risk assessment. It apologised for these failings. It provided a summary of events between 7 November 2023 to the time of the complaint. It found that aside from the issues identified, it had taken action that was proportionate to the level of ASB. It said the resident had been unwilling to provide sufficient evidence and it had not received noise reports from other neighbours. It advised that the ASB case would be closed unless the resident agreed to engage.

28 April 2025

The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord was “lying” about her not engaging with the investigation. She felt that the landlord was breaching its own pet policy and the tenancy agreement by not removing her neighbour’s dogs. She said she had previously sent diary sheets and noise app recordings but found these to be “useless.” She reported significant distress and related medical symptoms.

3 June 2025

The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:

  • it was taking all steps to ensure the resident’s neighbour was complying with the pet provisions of their tenancy agreement
  • it had found it necessary to take legal advice following concerns about the resident’s conduct towards staff, and reminded her of the behaviour clauses of her tenancy agreement
  • it was limited on how to move forward as the resident had said no to visits and further contact
  • the video evidence previously submitted by the resident was not sufficient for a legal case
  • it recommended that the resident engage with the impartial assessment and mediation service it had previously offered to refer her to
  • its offer to visit the resident remained open, as did its offer to refer the resident to Victim Support and the Advocacy People
  • it found that the stage 1 response was not handled correctly, and offered the resident £100 in recognition of this

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her response. She said the landlord had failed to resolve the ASB issues and her health had been impacted. She wanted the landlord to remove her neighbour’s dogs.

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 resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

Finding

Service failure

What we did not investigate

  1. In correspondence with us, the resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of a period in which she was away from the property. This period occurred months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, therefore we will not be investigating the matter. The landlord must be given an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns before we investigate.
  2. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

  1. The resident’s initial report on 7 November 2023 was about several dogs barking in the neighbourhood. The landlord attempted to manage the reports through its noise transference and pet nuisance procedures initially by encouraging the resident to speak with her neighbours. The resident said she had tried this and been threatened, so the landlord raised an ASB case. It sent the resident diary sheets to record the noise, which was an appropriate action in line with its ASB policy.
  2. The landlord took several reasonable steps to investigate the noise before closing the case on 29 May 2024. It visited the resident on 30 January 2024 and agreed to provide her with noise cancelling headphones, which it delivered on 1 February 2024. It was responsive to regular emails from the resident and signposted her to the RSPCA and the police where appropriate. The landlord visited 2 neighbours reported by the resident and did not observe any issues. It explained its findings to the resident in a phone call prior to issuing the case closure letter, which was reasonable.
  3. The landlord opened another ASB case following new reports of dog noise from the resident on 31 July 2024. It arranged to visit the resident on 15 August 2024, but she said she was unavailable. It rearranged and attended on 10 September 2024. It explained during the visit that videos provided by the resident were not sufficient evidence for it to act. It said the videos did not clearly show where barking was coming from, and at times showed the resident to be “antagonising” a neighbour’s dogs. While this was reasonable, it is unclear whether the landlord suggested alternative ways to provide evidence.
  4. The landlord delayed in taking further action to investigate the resident’s noise reports. In its stage 1 response, it explained that this was due to a high workload in the relevant team causing delays in case allocation. It apologised for this, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord took several reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports between October and November 2024. The resident had focussed her reports to one neighbour, so the landlord completed a home visit. It was made aware of counter-allegations of harassment, which it considered as part of its investigation. It also completed door knocking in the area and posted perception surveys to residents. It confirmed that it did not witness high volumes of dogs barking during its site visit, nor did the perception surveys report any issues.
  6. The resident escalated her ASB reports during this time to include threats of violence and harassment from her neighbour. The landlord liaised with the police about the matter and offered a joint visit to the resident, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident and wrote to her on 5 November 2024 to provide an update on her case. It explained the need for further evidence to progress the case and signposted the resident to Environmental Health.
  7. In a further update letter to the resident on 8 November 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had referred the resident and her neighbours to a third-party mediation service. It had liaised with Environmental Health and confirmed that the resident had until 30 November 2024 to send noise recordings. It provided an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement for the resident to sign, which it had also issued to her neighbours. These were all reasonable steps to address any ongoing noise and ASB. It closed the case on 21 January 2025 due to receiving no further contact from the resident.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again about dogs barking on 12 March 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was unreasonable. She contacted the landlord again on 28 March 2025 and reported verbal abuse and an assault from her neighbour. The landlord called the resident on 31 March 2025 and advised her that it would discuss the matter with the police. It contacted the police the next day, which was an appropriate action in line with its ASB policy.
  9. The resident sent frequent emails to the landlord during April 2025. She continued to report dogs barking and repeatedly asked the landlord to evict her neighbour. On 17 April 2025, the landlord provided the resident with an informal warning about “unacceptable conduct” due to the content of some of her emails. This was an appropriate action in line with its Managing Unacceptable Behaviour policy. It also provided an update on the ASB in this letter, reiterating that it needed sufficient evidence to progress the case.
  10. On 19 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident. It explained that it was limited on the action it could take to resolve the noise issues as the resident had refused noise surveillance equipment and home visits. It said it had spoken with the police, who had advised that no further action was taken on the resident’s reports of assault due to lack of evidence. We understand that such cases are reliant on evidence and that residents must be willing to engage with landlords and third parties where possible. 
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the impact of the ongoing issues on the resident. It assured the resident that it was willing to work with her to reach a resolution if she would constructively engage. It encouraged the resident to take up its offer of third-party mediation and set out support options including a Victim Support referral. It reiterated the need for sufficient evidence to consider her desired outcome for the landlord to remove the dogs or evict her neighbours. The landlord’s response was fair and proportionate.
  12. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment at any point while the resident’s ASB reports were ongoing. Its ASB policy clearly states that it will “carry out an assessment to establish if either party is considered vulnerable” when dealing with cases of ASB. Given the fact that the landlord had identified concerns for her wellbeing on several occasions, completion of a risk assessment would have been appropriate. The landlord identified this failing in its stage 1 response but failed to provide a meaningful apology that put things right for the resident. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  13. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £100 for minor failures that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the likely distress caused by its failure to complete a risk assessment.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
  2. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process that aligns with the Code. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code allow for extensions to provide complaint responses where the landlord has agreed this with the resident. An extension should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, and a further 20 working days at stage. The landlord requested extensions at both stages of its complaint process. It followed the correct procedure and provided both responses within the revised timeframes it set out.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and clear but failed to recognise the impact of the issue on the resident. It was unclear on next steps and failed to reassure the resident that it was taking her ongoing ASB concerns seriously. The landlord recognised these failings in its stage 2 response. Its apology and offer of £100 compensation put things right for the resident proportionately to the level of impact. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

  1. The landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint at both stages. It set out practical action points, including to provide feedback to individual staff members. We recommend that the landlord follows through with these action points if it has not already done so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was positive. It kept clear, dated records of all correspondence with the resident and actions taken to investigate her ASB reports.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally positive. It was responsive to the resident’s concerns and clear about any actions it was taking. Having clear service standards in its ASB policy may have made it easier to assess whether all the landlord’s correspondence was timely.