Your Housing Group Limited (202416934)

Decision
Case ID	202416934
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

The resident lived in a ground‑floor flat owned by the landlord. She began reporting concerns about alleged antisocial behaviour in January 2024. Although the landlord investigated, she remained unhappy with how the situation was handled. In March 2025, she moved out of the property, saying the ongoing issues had impacted on her health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Concerns of a breach of confidentiality.
3. Concerns about its lettings policy.
4. Her request for reimbursement of window privacy work.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found reasonable redress in the resident’s reports of ASB.
We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to concerns of a breach of confidentiality.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about its lettings policy.
We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to her request for reimbursement of window privacy work.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord recognised its failures to conduct a risk assessment and action plan relating to the ASB. It put things right through its apology and compensation. While it committed to take future action in the completion of a risk assessment, action plan and monitoring of alleged ASB, it is unclear of the extent of future action given the resident later moved home.
The landlord recognised the resident had received an email about another resident by mistake. It apologised, reported the incident to its data protection team and put things right in its offer of £100 in recognition of the adverse impact caused to her. It also committed to additional data protection training for its staff.
The landlord acted appropriately in reviewing the issues in the area and decided that any future lettings would be managed either as sensitive lets or under a local lettings policy.
The landlord recognised its delays to reimburse the resident for window privacy work. It apologised, reimbursed her costs and offered her additional compensation in recognition of its failures.
The landlord did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code at stage 1. However, it recognised its failures and put things right in its apology and compensation offer to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
August 2024	On 2 August 2024, the resident made a complaint about: The allocation of a property to a family she believed was overcrowded. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the area. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 August 2024, addressing each point as follows: Allocations and overcrowding Allocations were made in line with the council’s lettings policy and the nomination agreement. The landlord explained that it would not normally allocate a home above ground floor level to families with children under 10. It acknowledged there were some difficulties and lifestyle clashes in the area but confirmed it was satisfied that all allocations had been made appropriately and in accordance with policy. The landlord had visited the property in question and confirmed that an additional adult had been living there. It took action, and that person subsequently left the property. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) The landlord confirmed it had received ASB reports from the resident and another party. It was engaging with the alleged perpetrator regarding the behaviour of the children. It had carried out visits, issued warning letters, and sent a general scheme-wide letter encouraging residents to report any ASB. It requested clear diary sheets detailing dates, times, duration, and identification of those involved to support the investigation. It confirmed the ASB investigation was ongoing and that it would take appropriate action if sufficient evidence of serious breaches was obtained. It suggested arranging a meeting with residents at a mutually convenient location.
September 2024	On 4 September 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she had experienced almost 12 months of stress and anxiety due to what she described as “inconsiderate and antisocial neighbours on starter tenancies.” She felt the landlord had failed in its duty of care to existing residents and had breached another complainant’s confidentiality. She also stated she no longer had confidence in the landlord’s ASB process. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024, addressing the following issues: Delay in logging the complaint The landlord confirmed the resident had contacted it on 13 July and 23 July 2024 because she had not received an acknowledgement. It accepted there had been a delay in logging and acknowledging the complaint. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) An ASB case relating to drug use had been opened on 27 February 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy requires a risk assessment and an action plan to be completed with the complainant. It could not find evidence that either a risk assessment or an action plan had been completed. It outlined the actions taken: opening an ASB case, sending follow‑up letters to all residents, maintaining contact with the resident, and reporting the issue to the police. It also encouraged the resident to report any further incidents to the police. It confirmed there were no new complaints at that time but continued to carry out checks at the scheme. In April 2024, it closed the ASB case after contacting the resident, who confirmed there had been no further incidents. In June 2024, the resident reported a cannabis smell which she believed came from her neighbour’s property and was noticeable in the communal area. A warning letter was issued on 25 July 2024, followed by a further letter to all residents on 28 August 2024. The landlord recorded her interest in attending a community meeting and agreed to update her once it had contacted other residents. It agreed to contact her to understand any outstanding issues, record a new case, and complete a risk assessment and action plan. It apologised for not following its ASB and Hate Crime policy in completing a risk assessment and action plan. It also confirmed that the starter tenancy for the alleged perpetrator had been extended. Breach of confidentiality The resident had been copied into an email relating to another resident. She pointed out an inappropriate use of an emoji within the structure of the email. The landlord confirmed it had referred the matter to its data protection lead officer. It apologised for the error and assured her that confidentiality would be maintained in future. It explained that it had used an emoji in the email by mistake. Allocations policy The landlord reiterated its position regarding the council’s lettings policy and nomination agreement. It agreed to consider a local lettings policy or sensitive let in partnership with the council. Reimbursement of window privacy works It apologised for not arranging reimbursement of £51.05 and agreed to make the payment. The landlord identified learning from the complaint, including the need for improved recording and management of ASB cases and additional data protection training. It also agreed to review its approach to future lettings in the area. It apologised for its failures and offered the resident £550 compensation, broken down as: £50 for the delay in logging the stage 1 complaint. £300 for failures in handling the ASB case. £100 for the breach of confidentiality and resulting loss of trust. £100 reimbursement for window treatment works.
Referral to the Ombudsman September 2024	The resident contacted us to progress her complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. In particular she wanted the landlord to implement a local letting framework or plan for the scheme to protect residents quiet enjoyment of the scheme and their homes. As part of our introductory process, we contacted the resident for an update. The resident told us that in March 2025 she moved to alternative accommodation. She said the position at the previous home had become untenable due to ASB and no longer feeling safe. She had lost the confidence of how the landlord was dealing with the case. She told us the situation affected her health and wellbeing. She asked that the landlord reimburse her the removal costs of £1035 associated with the 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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord is committed to working with victims of ASB or hate crime and where appropriate, risk assess the impact on the reporter to determine next steps and support requirements.
Where appropriate it will consider relevant legal interventions such as obtaining an injunction or seeking possession of the alleged perpetrators home. It commits to work in partnership with other agencies such as the council, police to determine a reasonable and proportionate approach to tackling the issues.
The landlord’s records indicate that it began gathering evidence of the alleged ASB around January 2024. At that time, it wrote to all residents in the scheme explaining that a strong smell of cigarette smoke had been detected in the communal hallway. The letter reminded residents of the no‑smoking policy and asked anyone with relevant information to come forward.
In February 2024, the landlord issued a further letter to all residents, this time regarding the reported use of cannabis. It warned that the use of cannabis could amount to a breach of tenancy. It reiterated that this type of behaviour would not be tolerated and again encouraged residents to report any information or contact the police.
The landlord followed up with the resident in March and April 2024. It explained that it could not take further action because it had been unable to identify the alleged perpetrator and no residents had provided information. It advised the resident on how to report any future incidents, including to the police where appropriate, and confirmed it would carry out site visits. In the circumstances, the landlord’s initial response was reasonable and proportionate at the time.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord at the beginning of August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in mid‑August 2024. It confirmed that it had received ASB reports from both the resident and another individual, and that it had identified the alleged perpetrator in relation to concerns about the behaviour of children. Its actions included visiting the alleged perpetrator’s home and issuing warning letters. The landlord explained that it needed further evidence to progress matters and asked the resident to complete diary sheets. It also proposed holding a meeting with residents in the scheme as a constructive next step. These were reasonable measures for the landlord to take as part of its evidence‑gathering and response to the reported ASB.
The resident escalated her complaint at the beginning of September 2024, explaining that the ASB was causing her stress and anxiety. The landlord issued its stage 2 response towards the end of September 2024. It explained that it had opened an ASB case relating to drug use in late February 2024. It acknowledged that it could not find evidence that a risk assessment or action plan had been completed with the resident at that time.
As a way forward, the landlord agreed to complete a risk assessment and action plan with the resident. It noted her interest in attending a community meeting, confirming it would update her once it had gauged interest from other residents. It apologised for its shortcomings in handling the ASB case and offered £300 in compensation.
In conclusion, the landlord took several proactive steps to address the alleged ASB, including gathering evidence, carrying out site checks, engaging with the alleged perpetrator and issuing warning letters. These actions contributed positively to progressing the case. However, its failure to complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident was inappropriate and contributed to her feeling vulnerable, anxious and stressed.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 response, apologised, and agreed to carry out a risk assessment and action plan with the resident, however, it is unclear if these actions were completed as the resident later moved home. It also offered £300 in compensation, which we consider a reasonable step to put things right. The compensation amount is consistent with our remedies guidance for cases where failures have caused adverse impact to a resident.
For these reasons, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint	Concerns of a breach of confidentiality
Finding	Reasonable redress

In September 2024, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she said the landlord had breached confidentiality regarding another resident. She explained that she had been copied into an email about a different resident, which included an emoji within the message. As a result, she said she had lost confidence in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response towards the end of September 2024. It apologised for the error and referred the matter to its data protection lead officer. It reassured the resident that it takes matters of confidentiality seriously. The landlord offered £100 in recognition of the impact the breach had on her trust in the landlord.
Referring the issue to its data protection team was an appropriate step, and its apology and compensation offer were reasonable actions to put things right. The landlord also identified learning from the complaint, including the need for additional data protection training. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s concerns about a breach of confidentiality.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lettings policy.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s access to housing policy sets out how it allocates its homes. It commits to make sure a home meets the individual needs of the customer, and that the housing offer reflects existing and future customer requirements.
There are 3 main routes into one of the landlord’s properties:
1. Nomination from the local authority through a nomination agreement.
2. Choice Based Lettings (CBL) scheme – local authority housing register.
3. Allocating against local lettings plans where agreed and appropriate.
Additionally, the landlord considers transfer and management moves.
The landlord states that it may class a vacant property, or more than one property, as requiring a sensitive let. This may happen where there has been an eviction, ongoing ASB or where it has received a request from statutory partners not to house certain individuals at specific locations.
The resident contacted the landlord at the beginning of August 2024 to complain about its decision to allocate a property to a family she believed was overcrowded. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in mid‑August 2024. It explained the relevant lettings policy, including the criteria for allocating homes above ground floor to families with children under 10. It confirmed that the allocation had been made in line with policy, however it acknowledged that there appeared to be a lifestyle clash between residents.
The resident escalated the complaint at the beginning of September 2024, explaining that her concerns about ASB were linked to the arrival of new neighbours. The landlord issued its stage 2 response towards the end of September 2024. It confirmed that, for future allocations in the area, it would consider implementing a local lettings policy or a sensitive let in partnership with the council.
In conclusion, we do not have sufficient evidence about the specific allocations to determine the allocation route. However, the evidence suggests the specific application was made through the local authority’s allocation scheme. In these circumstances, a decision about the letting of properties under a local authority’s allocation scheme would fall within the remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. This matter would therefore fall outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
The landlord showed that it had reviewed the issues in the area and decided that any future lettings would be managed either as sensitive lets or under a local lettings policy. This demonstrates that the landlord considered issues in the local area and took proactive steps to address this part of the complaint. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about letting of properties.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of window privacy work.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident asked the landlord in mid‑July 2024 to reimburse £51.05 for work she had carried out on a window to improve privacy. The landlord replied later that month, asking her to provide a receipt so it could consider the request. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord again at the end of July 2024, stating that she had already submitted the receipts for the window work. She raised the issue once more in her stage 2 complaint at the beginning of September 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 towards the end of September 2024, apologising for the delay and agreeing to reimburse the costs, along with additional compensation to reflect its slow response. It offered a total of £100. We consider this to be a reasonable remedy for the delay and inconvenience caused. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to the reimbursement for the window privacy works.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident raised a complaint around July 2024. She had to chase the landlord for an acknowledgement, but she did not receive this. It sent its stage 1 response letter on 19 August 2024.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. Landlords must issue a full response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord failed to comply with the Code which was inappropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and sent it stage 2 response on 25 September 2024.
The Code states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord appropriately complied with the Code.
The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 response, apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation. We see this as a reasonable resolution to put things right for the resident in recognition of her time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord has appropriately reviewed all aspects of its failures, identifying what went wrong and how it will learn from the complaint. The landlord must ensure it implements actions to improve its service within the identified areas. This should include how it will improve its ASB service to ensure it complies with its statutory and policy obligations.