Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202507267)

Background

1. The resident has referred this complaint to us on her mother’s behalf. They occupy the property together with the resident’s child. There are multiple vulnerabilities within the household, including physical and mental health issues. For years, the resident has contacted the landlord about noise, drug activity, and other issues relating to her neighbour (‘the neighbour’). She also told it that the property was no longer suitable for her mother’s needs and this was compounded by the condition of the kitchen and repairs needed to the bathroom, doors, and windows.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of various repairs.
   2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. Reports that the property was unsuitable for her mother’s needs.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the property is unsuitable for her needs.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were significant delays in the landlord addressing repairs to the resident’s kitchen, doors and windows. It failed to keep contemporaneous repair records, monitor the outcome of inspections and manage follow on works effectively.
6. No risk assessments or investigations were conducted by the landlord in response to the resident’s multiple ASB reports. While it kept her reasonably informed about its legal action against the neighbour, it failed to address her individual concerns.
7. The landlord did not take timely and effective steps to deal with the resident’s concerns that the property was not suitable for her mother’s needs.
8. The landlord unreasonably refused to investigate the resident’s complaint about repairs. It also failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving her other concerns. It did not fairly consider its handling of matters, did not offer proportionate redress, and did not demonstrate it took learning from her experience.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident has raised matters, to both us and the landlord, about repairs to a faulty stairlift and brickwork. However, these have not been dealt with through its complaint procedure. As she had not previously reported these repairs to the landlord, they are more appropriately categorised as a ‘service request’ under our Complaint Handling Code. We will not normally investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised these matters as part of her formal complaint. Therefore, we have not investigated these issues.
10. The resident told both the landlord and us that the ripped flooring in the kitchen caused her mother to sustain multiple falls. She said its poor handling of repairs, ASB issues and the property’s suitability impacted her and her family’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. We note that, during a telephone call with the landlord on 18 August 2025, the resident referred to “ongoing issues with repairs since lockdown”. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 April 2025. There is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly when she became aware of the repairs issues. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate matters relating to historical repairs.

What we did investigate

12. In its response to our information request, the landlord said the resident’s complaint about repairs was in fact a service request. This was inconsistent with its letter to the resident dated 29 April 2025, which stated it could not investigate her complaint about repairs because it did not have enough information about the issues. Furthermore, the evidence shows the resident had previously (and repeatedly) reported repairs to her kitchen, bathroom, doors and windows. In all the circumstances, it was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to investigate these complaints.
13. The landlord is responsible for all reported repairs under the tenancy agreement. It has provided us with its responsive repairs policy and procedure dated August 2025. While this post-dates the resident’s earlier reports, the repair priorities and timescales in this policy appear to be consistent with earlier works orders within the repairs history. These are:
    1. Emergency repairs (P1) – 24 hours.
    2. Urgent Repairs (P2) – 10 calendar days.
    3. Routine Repairs (P3) – 28 working days.
    4. Routine Repairs (P4) – 90 calendar days.
14. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
15. In this case, we have received extensive evidence from the landlord. However, there are a number of gaps in the repairs records, such as details of contractor attendances, inspection reports, and works carried out. As a result, we cannot ascertain the outcomes of inspections and if/when works were completed.
16. The poor condition of the kitchen was noted during the landlord’s visit to the resident on 11 April 2024. It found the cupboards had fallen off and said it would arrange for someone to repair this. It emailed her on 29 May 2024, stating it would chase the kitchen repairs again. An internal email dated 10 June 2024 included the resident’s reports of further repairs to her bathroom, back door and windows.
17. There is no evidence the landlord addressed these repairs at the time. However, various contractors subsequently attended to repairs, including to the resident’s bathroom, by 21 October 2024. It is unclear from the available evidence exactly when the repairs took place and what works were carried out. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that the bathroom repairs addressed all the issues the resident was experiencing at the time. In any case, it appears the landlord exceeded the longest timescale in its repairs policy (90 calendar days)  in completing some of the repairs. Repairs to the kitchen, back door and windows, however, remained outstanding. This was unsatisfactory.
18. The resident chased an inspection of her kitchen on 21 October 2024 as the surveyor had missed a scheduled appointment. The surveyor attended on 7 November 2024 and found they could not assess any needed repairs as the kitchen was cluttered. It was agreed the resident would clear the items by 6 December 2024.
19. On 8 November 2024, the landlord told the resident it would consider court action if she did not improve the condition of her kitchen as it was a significant fire risk. She was unable to do this as she had emergency surgery shortly afterwards. The tone of the email seems unnecessarily heavy-handed and unsympathetic to the resident’s circumstances at the time, particularly given its own delay in attending to inspect the kitchen repairs.
20. There is no evidence the landlord acted to address the repairs noted in the resident’s email of 28 April 2025, which was inappropriate. We note its repairs team advised her on 2 June 2025 that it was unable to locate an existing repair for her kitchen and doors and she should contact its customer support team to raise a new request. This added to the delays in addressing repairs.
21. Meanwhile, an occupational therapist called the landlord on 1 May 2025 to ask about the flooring repair, saying this had been raised numerous times. The landlord told them it could not see any reference to this within its records and systems and a new repair should be reported. However, we note a later works order referred to a trip hazard identified in the kitchen in November 2024. The landlord also (unsuccessfully) called the resident on 13 November 2024 “to update them on flooring delay”. Together, this evidence demonstrates it ought reasonably to have known about the flooring issue but overlooked this due to poor record keeping and/or a failure to manage the repair effectively. It also demonstrates a lack of due regard for health and safety.
22. Then, on 2 May 2025, the landlord misunderstood the resident’s concerns that the kitchen was not safe or suitable for her mother because of the flooring. It wrongly treated this as a request for aids and adaptations and advised her to apply for a disabled facilities grant through an occupational therapist.
23. The landlord suggested the resident had caused damage to the kitchen cupboard fronts, despite no evidence of this from its surveyor in late 2024. It suggested she should have kept the cupboard doors for rehanging. However, she disputed this, saying the doors were “unsalvageable” after a previous leak. This highlights the landlord’s inconsistent approach to the kitchen repairs and its failure to keep accurate and clear records.
24. We note the landlord advised the resident, on 19 September 2025, that it would review her kitchen in 2026 in line with its stock condition survey. However, it completed the survey on 20 May 2025 and noted the resident’s kitchen was due for renewal in 2025. This does not appear to have been considered by the landlord alongside the resident’s repeated reports of repairs needed to her kitchen, which was unsatisfactory.
25. The evidence shows the resident has repeatedly raised and chased repairs to her kitchen, doors and windows. The landlord’s failure to keep appropriate records of surveys and contractor attendances resulted in repeat inspections and avoidable delays. Together with its failure to monitor the outcome of such visits, its lack of oversight, and its failure to manage follow on works, the progress of repairs was slow and ineffective.
26. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident persisted in pursuing outstanding repairs, and the landlord discussed this with her and her support worker on 27 October 2025. Thereafter, it arranged a further inspection, and raised numerous works orders on 8 and 11 December 2025. These included repairs to the doors and windows, as well as a kitchen replacement. This was 20 months after concerns about the condition of the kitchen were first noted, which was excessive.
27. The landlord’s handling of repairs in this case was inflexible and did not take into account the household’s vulnerabilities and additional needs, which exacerbated the impact of its repeated failings. It did not consider the increased impact to the resident and her family of outstanding repairs or the need to minimise this. Essentially, it has not demonstrated with evidence that it had due regard for its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, for example, the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
28. The severe detrimental impact to the resident and her family of the landlord’s long-term failings was evident in her communications. For example, in August 2025, she told it she and her mother had fallen multiple times due to the trip hazard in the kitchen. In October 2025, she said the hazard posed by the kitchen flooring was negatively impacting the family’s mental wellbeing and carers were struggling to safely attend to her mother. Our order for compensation of £750 is in line with our compensation guidance for significant physical and emotional impact.

What we did not investigate

29. The resident has told us she has lived with ASB issues for the past 10 years. While she raised a formal complaint on 11 April 2025, we note she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters on numerous occasions prior to this, including via her local MP on 13 September 2023 and 8 January 2024. Therefore, we have investigated matters relating to ASB that occurred as from this period.

What we did investigate

30. The landlord has provided us with its ASB policies dated June 2023 and October 2025, which post-date the resident’s earlier ASB reports. These were broadly consistent in providing that it will:
    1. Adopt a victim-centred approach to managing ASB cases and safeguard vulnerable victims.
    2. Focus on the prevention and resolution of issues.
    3. Always open and investigate cases in specific circumstances, including drug activity, violence and the threatened use of violence, and noise nuisance.
    4. Risk assess all ASB reports and respond accordingly, within set timescales.
    5. Work with residents and partner agencies, and progress agreed actions.
31. These policies, on their own, are not sufficiently clear on the procedure staff should follow and the investigations to be undertaken upon receipt of an ASB report. They do not explain how it delivers a victim-centred response or the range of tools and powers at its disposal. In the circumstances, we cannot assess if it acted in line with its process.
32. As with repairs, there are gaps in some of the earlier ASB records provided to us by the landlord. There is limited evidence of the communications between the parties from 2022 to 2024. For instance, it is unclear what was discussed in respect of the reported ASB and any agreed actions, advice or support offered by the landlord during a conversation with the resident on 11 April 2024. Although its subsequent email of 16 April 2024 referred to an action plan, we have not seen this. We acknowledge, however, that there was a significant positive improvement in its record keeping from March 2025 onwards.
33. Records show the resident made numerous, albeit sporadic, ASB reports against the neighbour from September 2022 to June 2025, including about drug activity and noise. Contrary to its ASB policy, there is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case, conducted risk assessments, or investigated the allegations at the time. Given the nature of the reports, the family’s multiple vulnerabilities, and the evident level of distress and inconvenience being caused, the lack of action was inappropriate and did not reflect a victim-centred approach. It is also good practice to consider the support needs of victims of ASB, but we cannot see it made any referrals or signposted the resident. This resulted in her feeling ignored.
34. On 28 March 2024, the resident reported feeling very intimidated, scared and vulnerable due to constant disturbances, the smell from drug use, and noise from the neighbour’s property. In response, the landlord sent her a text message, advising her to call the police for ASB drug use and if she felt worried or unsafe. This was not an adequate response in all the circumstances as the police would only take action on criminal matters and would not, therefore, be able to deal with the concerns about noise. It overlooked its own obligations, as the landlord, and the powers and tools available to it for tackling ASB.
35. There is also no evidence the landlord addressed the resident’s ASB concerns raised via her local MP on 2 separate occasions. This was a missed opportunity to address the issues in line with its policy and good practice.
36. That said, the landlord appears to have started legal proceedings for possession at some point in 2024, which demonstrates it shared the resident’s ASB concerns. On 29 May 2024, it told her it was dealing with this. It told the resident on 3 July 2024 that it could not discuss anything with her because it was a legal matter, but it reassured her it was “taking this very seriously”. This was appropriate, having regard to its data protection obligations while also keeping the resident reasonably updated about its actions.
37. The landlord provided a more detailed update to the resident on the upcoming trial on 2 April 2025, explaining the need to evidence the ASB and potential outcomes. The resident did not want to provide witness or other evidence for the proceedings as she was scared of reprisal. In its email to her on 17 April 2025, it noted that the trial was booked for the summer but it was considering other interventions and would update her in due course. This was appropriate in all the circumstances.
38. The resident’s email of 13 March 2025 referenced her ongoing ASB reports to the police, the local authority, and to the landlord via the online portal, to which she said she had received no responses. We have not seen those reports so cannot determine if there was a failing on the landlord’s part in this regard. That said, in line with its policy of partnership working, it would have been good practice for the landlord to contact the police for further information on any reports they had received from the resident.
39. In a telephone call with the resident on 2 April 2025, the landlord advised her to report fighting and drug-related issues first to the police, then her housing officer. It advised her to record noise on a mobile device so it could assess whether this constituted a nuisance. It also committed to maintaining fortnightly contact with her in the run-up to enforcement, even if there were no updates to provide.
40. To the landlord’s credit, there was a marked improvement in its communications with the resident regarding the ASB case from this point onwards. It was more proactive in providing updates and its approach was supportive and sympathetic. For instance, the resident’s emails between 16 April and 13 May 2025 clearly demonstrate the distress and inconvenience she was experiencing as a result of the ongoing ASB issues. In response to her request for more support in sharing evidence anonymously, the landlord and police attended a joint meeting with her. This reflects a victim-centred approach, learning from the complaint, and effective partnership working, in line with its policy.
41. We note the landlord promptly sought to update the resident by way of a text message upon obtaining a suspended possession order on 27 June 2025. However, it had overlooked a conversation with her on 25 June 2025, when she advised she was unable to access text messages, emails and voicemail messages. Consequently, she requested an update on the court proceedings on 5 August 2025. The update was subsequently provided in its stage 2 response, over 3 weeks later. This was unsatisfactory.
42. Records from August 2025 onwards show the landlord was proactive in pursuing evidence from the resident, police and others in order to return to court for breaches of the suspended possession order. This was positive and demonstrates its commitment to tackling the ASB issues.
43. The landlord’s complaint responses accepted shortcomings in its handling of ASB issues, specifically its communications with the resident and attendance at some meetings. It did not clearly apportion its offer of compensation between the ASB complaint and that relating to the suitability of the property. In the circumstances, we consider it fair and reasonable to assume the compensation was to be split equally between the 2 issues, so £175 each (based on the increased offer made on 10 October 2025).
44. While the landlord acknowledged some failings and attempted to put things right, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Accordingly, we have awarded the increased amount of £500 compensation, in line with our compensation guidance, for the adverse effect of its failings on the resident.

What we did not investigate

45. We note the resident’s concern that the property was no longer suitable for her mother’s needs was included in her local MP’s email to the landlord on 13 September 2023. However, her formal complaint was not referred to the landlord within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. Therefore, we will not investigate matters relating to the suitability of the property that occurred before April 2024.

What we did investigate

46. The landlord’s management move procedure, dated June 2023, states:
    1. Due to the limited availability of stock, it will always encourage the resident to apply with the relevant local authority or for a mutual exchange as this may allow a move more quickly than waiting for a management move.
    2. If the move is based on medical grounds, the request must be supported by evidence from the resident’s GP, an occupational therapist, and/or any other supporting agency.
    3. The resident will be added to the landlord’s internal waiting list, which is reviewed every 12 months to ensure that the applications are still valid.
47. The landlord sent the resident a letter to support her application for re-housing to the local authority on 25 April 2025. In its stage 2 response, it accepted it had delayed in providing this letter, which she had requested in October 2024. We have seen no evidence of the communications between the parties regarding re-housing in October 2024, which points to a record keeping failure. In any case, the landlord accepted responsibility for the 6-month delay.
48. Looking more broadly at the resident’s concerns that the property was no longer suitable for her mother’s needs, it is clear the landlord failed to take timely and reasonable steps to address this issue. For instance, its notes of a property visit on 11 April 2024 recorded that “this house is not working for the needs of the family” as the resident’s mother “is very disabled, not very mobile, [and] needs a bungalow and another room”. Therefore, it advised her to contact the local authority to go back onto the housing list. While this was reasonable advice and consistent with its policy, it did not explain its own management move procedure to the resident at the time. Nor did it advise her on other options, such as mutual exchange. This was unsatisfactory.
49. Records show discussions between the parties about an unsuccessful re-housing application to the local authority in May/June 2024. The resident duly sent the landlord something from the occupational therapist, but we have not seen this. In any event, there is no further evidence to show the landlord offered any advice or support and/or considered a management move at the time.
50. There are then no records relating to the resident’s need for re-housing until her complaint in April 2025. The landlord’s responses took a very narrow view, focussing only on its failure to send her a supporting letter for a re-housing application to the local authority. It failed to consider her urgent concerns about the property not being suitable for her mother’s needs. This was a missed opportunity to put things right.
51. Consequently, the resident told the landlord on 3 October 2025 that she was not happy with its stage 2 response. It told her that she needed to complete a management move application and register on its mutual exchange platform on 9 October 2025. This was a more appropriate response to address her continuing concerns. Its repeated failure to provide clear, timely advice on its management move policy caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she felt unsupported and ignored.
52. As noted above, we have apportioned £175 of the landlord’s compensation offer as relating to its omissions in respect of this complaint. Although this represents an attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and failed to address the detriment to the household, particularly the resident’s mother. For context, the resident had previously raised the issue via her local MP in September 2023 and reiterated the need for re-housing on 2 February 2024, so its omissions in 2024 had a compounding effect. In line with our compensation guidance, we have awarded additional compensation for the adverse impact of the failings.
53. Additionally, this case highlights the need for landlords to embed, both within its policies and in practice, a framework for supporting vulnerable residents. Accordingly, we have recommended it considers implementing such a policy.

54. The landlord’s definition of a complaint in its complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Based on this definition, it missed opportunities to address her concerns in communications sent by her MP in September 2023 and January 2024. It missed a further opportunity in February 2024. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
55. The landlord’s complaints policy, dated July 2025, adopts the timescales prescribed in the Code. The policy states it will:
    1. Acknowledge a stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days of receipt.
    2. Provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If an extension is required, this will not exceed a further 10 working days.
    3. Provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If an extension is required, this will not exceed a further 20 working days.
56. Against these timescales:
    1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 3 working days.
    2. It issued its stage 1 response within 20 working days. It did not advise the resident in advance that it would take longer to provide its response. However, it contacted her 13 working days after its acknowledgement to notify her of the extension.
    3. We cannot ascertain whether or not the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation within 5 working days because it has not provided us with the record of the relevant telephone call.
    4. It provided its stage 2 response within 8 working days of acknowledging the stage 2 escalation.
57. The landlord took narrow view of each of the complaints about ASB and property suitability and did not address key failings. Further, it did not show it took any learning from the resident’s complaint. Overall, the response was not consistent with our dispute resolution principles, to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
58. As noted above, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaints about repairs in April 2025. She provided the further information it requested on 28 April 2025, but there is no evidence it raised the matter again, as it said it would do, to be triaged. This was not compliant with the Code as it did not deal with the complaint on its merits and failed to consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
59. Furthermore, when she reiterated she was not happy with its handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom during a telephone conversation on 2 May 2025, it noted it would not uphold the complaint. Its failure to provide this decision to her in writing was not consistent with the Code.
60. On 3 October 2025, the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response as it did not deal with all the issues raised. She said she also had outstanding complaints regarding repairs and was expecting the response to deal with these. It said it had raised these as separate issues and apologised that this had not been better explained to her previously. However, we cannot see that it dealt with the repairs complaint under its complaint handling procedure.
61. The landlord’s repeated failings in its handling of the resident’s repairs complaint demonstrate a failure to embed its complaint handling policy within its repairs service. This compounded its poor handling of the repairs themselves and, in turn, the impact to the resident. Therefore, we have awarded compensation, in line with our compensation guidance, for the distress and inconvenience resulting from its poor handling.

Learning

62. We have made recommendations for the landlord to review certain policies with a view to improving the delivery and consistency of its service to residents. Alongside this, it should ensure its policies and good practice are embedded in its everyday service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

63. While there was an improvement in the landlord’s more recent record keeping, there are still gaps in the evidence that need to be addressed. In particular, it should ensure it keeps contemporaneous repair records, including inspection reports and the outcome of contractor attendances.

Communication

64. The landlord’s communications also improved in more recent times.