From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Accent Housing Limited (202420329)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420329

Accent Housing Limited

29 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated March 2007. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has told this Service that she has physical and mental health conditions. The landlord has recorded that she has physical health conditions.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 7 May 2024. She said a neighbour was turning around in her parking bay, parking their motorbike there and revving it loudly. The landlord called the resident on 16 May 2024. It said it had visited the site, and no one was using her parking space. The resident called the landlord on 20 May 2024. She said this issue was ongoing and a family member of the neighbour was doing the same with their car. The resident said that she had called the police.
  3. The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 May 2024. She said the issues with the neighbours revving vehicles on her drive had been ongoing since around Christmas and happened around 4 times a week. The resident said she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled her ASB complaint as it called her neighbour instead of speaking with her. She said it was treating her differently due to a previous complaint she had made. The landlord treated this as a complaint. The resident called the landlord again on 29 and 31 May 2024. She said the ASB was ongoing.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2024. The resident called the landlord on 5 June 2024. She reported that the ASB from her neighbours was ongoing. The landlord cancelled an appointment to attend the resident’s property on 10 June 2024 at short notice due to staff sickness. It informed the resident of this. The resident called the landlord on 11 June 2024. She reiterated that the ASB was ongoing.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024:
    1. it had investigated the resident’s ASB complaint and had spoken with her neighbour and told them to stop using her parking space and revving their motorbike, but it did not speak to her first.
    2. it spoke with the resident’s other neighbours to see if any were having similar issues.
    3. it did not determine if it should handle this through its ASB policy or its good neighbourhood policy.
    4. it made an appointment to view the resident’s CCTV but had to rearrange this at the last minute.
    5. it had not received any further reports of ASB since it asked her neighbour to stop. However, its communication with the resident could have been better although there was no evidence it treated the resident differently.
    6. it was sorry that it had not handled the resident’s ASB case as well as it could have so far, and this had resulted in her having a lack of trust in it.
    7. it would arrange a joint visit from a housing partner and a manager to look at her evidence, discuss her issues and agree an action plan. It hoped this would help rebuild the resident’s trust in it.
  6. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 31 July 2024. It acknowledged this on 1 August 2024. The landlord called her to discuss her complaint on 5 August 2024. She said that she initially had an issue with another neighbour, and the more recent issue with a different neighbour was ongoing. She repeated that the landlord contacted her neighbour without contacting her. She said it had not reviewed her evidence. It emailed the resident and her representative from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) on 27 August to try and arrange a meeting to view the resident’s evidence.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 August 2024. It said:
    1. it addressed the resident’s concerns about it not contacting her following her initial report of ASB and apologised for this error in its stage 1 response.
    2. it offered a joint visit from a housing partner and manager to review her evidence but there was no evidence of her responding to this offer.
    3. during a telephone call on 16 August 2024, it had offered to send a different manager and housing partner to investigate the resident’s allegations against her neighbour.
    4. it offered £150 compensation during this call which the resident had refused.
    5. its final offer was £200 and the offer of an appointment with a different manager and housing partner.
    6. it was sorry the resident had cause to complain and for any inconvenience.
  8. The landlord visited the resident on 24 September 2024. It advised her it would be producing an acceptable behaviour contract for her and her neighbour to sign. The resident refused to sign this. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 February 2025. She said the ASB was ongoing. She wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB issues and pay compensation. She has since told this Service that the neighbour who revved their motorbike had moved out. However, she said she had ongoing issues with the flat above hers and this neighbour was banging on her front door with their bike when he passed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported issues with ASB from a different neighbour in July and September 2023. The resident did not raise a complaint at that time, and the landlord has not considered this in its complaint responses of 12 June and 28 August 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not investigate the issues from 2023 and will consider the issues from when the resident reported ASB again in May 2024.
  2. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised several new issues. These issues did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the ASB issues addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses of 12 June and 28 August 2024. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
  3. As part of her complaint the resident has raised that the issues have impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident has complained about certain staff members and their handling of her ASB case. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
  5. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman would make a determination and any associated orders and recommendations against the landlord rather than the individual.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy from the time defined ASB as:
    1. behaviour that unreasonably interferes with other people’s rights to the use and enjoyment of their home and community.
    2. engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing, or likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to any person.
    3. acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to 1 or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.
  3. This ASB policy states that the landlord would:
    1. work in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations to provide advice and support to victims of ASB and deal with perpetrators, in line with current legislation and its policies and procedures.
    2. respond positively to any reports of ASB with the level of urgency proportionate to the nature of the complaint, using all tools available to it.
    3. take prompt and effective action to deal with reports of ASB, introduce measures to prevent further incidents and support residents to provide evidence.
    4. carry out thorough investigations of all reports of ASB including assessing the risk of each case and working with residents to agree an action plan.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 7 May 2024. She reported ASB from her neighbour. She said they were parking their motorbike in her parking space and loudly revving it. The landlord called the resident on 16 May 2024. It explained that it had visited the site, and nobody was using her parking space. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would thoroughly investigate all reports of ASB. This includes assessing the risk and agreeing action plans with residents. The landlord did not do this. This was inappropriate.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 20 May 2024. She said the ASB was ongoing and had happened over the previous weekend. The resident reported that a family member of this neighbour had started to rev their car, and they were doing U-turns in her driveway. She said she had called the police.
  6. The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 May 2024. She said the ASB had been ongoing since Christmas, and she had several crime reference numbers. She said the police had signposted her to the local authority as she needed CCTV and the local authority had said the ASB was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord said it could not do much as there was a lack of evidence. However, it had spoken with the neighbour in question. The landlord had not contacted the resident to complete a risk assessment or agreed an action plan with her. This was inappropriate when measured against its ASB policy
  7. The resident called the landlord on 29 and 31 May 2024. She said the ASB was ongoing, and the neighbours had been verbally abusive and threatened her. She said she was scared of what the neighbour would do next. She said she had called the police and obtained a crime number, but they could not do anything without evidence. The landlord advised her to contact the police if she felt threatened or in danger. This was in line with its ASB policy and was reasonable.
  8. The landlord said it had spoken with the neighbours and told them not to use the resident’s parking space. It explained that it needed to give the neighbours the opportunity to amend their behaviour. It agreed to monitor the situation and call the resident week beginning 10 June 2024 to see if the situation had improved. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as its ASB policy states that it would act with the level of urgency proportionate to the complaint.
  9. However, the resident called the landlord on 5 June 2024 and reported that the ASB was ongoing as her neighbours had threatened her and been verbally abusive. The landlord’s records show that it was due to visit the resident on 10 June 2024. It was unable to keep this appointment due to staff sickness. It called the resident, informed her of this and offered another appointment at the end of that week. Although it did not confirm a date for this appointment.
  10. The resident called the landlord on 11 June 2024. She said the ASB was ongoing, and she had to install CCTV as she had no historic evidence. The landlord advised the resident to send any mobile phone footage to its customer services email address. This was reasonable when measured against the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord raised a task to call the resident back. This did not happen, and the landlord did not rearrange the missed appointment on 10 June 2024 to visit the resident. This was unreasonable.
  11. In its stage 1 response of 12 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged that it did not contact the resident before speaking with her neighbour about ASB. It said it had not handled the resident’s ASB complaint as well as it should have and could have handled her issues better from the start. It apologised for this and said there was no evidence it had treated the resident differently. This was reasonable.
  12. However, in this response the landlord said it had not received any reports of ASB from the resident since it spoke with the neighbour. The resident had reported ASB was ongoing since 24 May 2024 when it told her it had spoken with her neighbour. Therefore, this was unreasonable. Additionally, this response did not acknowledge other failures such as it not completing a risk assessment or agreeing an action plan. This was unreasonable.
  13. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had spoken with other residents to see if they were experiencing ASB. It has not provided any record of this. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
  14. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 August 2024 to arrange a meeting to review her evidence of ASB. It was unsure if the resident understood its request, so it contacted her representative at CAB. This was in line with its ASB policy and was reasonable. The landlord emailed its stage 2 response on 28 August 2024. It asked the resident to provide her availability the following week so a different housing partner and manager to hers could visit her. This was reasonable.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had acknowledged that it did not contact the resident and apologised for this in its stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge its other failures. This was unreasonable. It also referred to a telephone call of 16 August 2024. It has not provided any record of this call. Had the landlord considered the information in the landlord’s spotlight report on KIM it may have prevented this failing.
  16. The landlord visited the resident on 24 September 2024. It advised it would produce acceptable behaviour contracts for her and her neighbour to sign. The resident refused to sign this as her CCTV recorded everyone, and she had been told she needed video evidence of her neighbour’s behaviour. Even so, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as its ASB policy states that it would introduce measures to prevent further incidents. The resident said her neighbour was now parking in their own space.

Summary

  1. The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident to contact the police if she felt threatened. It also explained to her that it would give her neighbour the opportunity to amend their behaviour after speaking with them. Additionally, it advised the resident to send any footage of the ASB by email. It also acknowledged that it did not speak with the resident before speaking with her neighbour in its stage 1 response. The landlord also arranged for a different housing partner and manager to visit the resident to review her evidence and offered to produce acceptable behaviour contracts.
  2. However, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB because it:
    1. did not complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident when she reported ASB from her neighbour in May 2024.
    2. did not call the resident back after her call of 11 June 2024 and did not rearrange the missed appointment from 10 June 2024.
    3. incorrectly said that the resident had not reported ASB since it had spoken with her neighbour in its stage 1 response.
    4. did not provide any record of it speaking to other residents about the ASB as stated in its stage 1 response.
    5. did not provide any record of the call to the resident on 16 August 2024 as referred to in its stage 2 response.
  3. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage 1 response. It offered £200 compensation for this in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings. The resident showed the upset and distress the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB had on her in her correspondence with it. Therefore, the landlord should pay additional compensation to recognise this.
  4. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance a fair level of compensation would be £150 in addition to the £200 already offered for a total of £350. This appropriately recognises the distress and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that:
    1. it would acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days of receiving it and investigate the complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgment.
    2. it would acknowledge an escalation of a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 May 2024. It treated this as a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 June 2024. This was 5 working days after it had received the complaint. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. This was appropriate when measured against its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 31 July 2024. From the records provided it is unclear why. Had the landlord considered the information in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on KIM it could have prevented this oversight. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 1 August 2024. This was appropriate. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 August 2024. This was in line with its complaints policy and was appropriate.
  4. It is unclear why the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. However, it acknowledged the resident’s complaint and provided responses within the timescales stipulated in its complaint policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days the landlord must:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident the £200 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. pay the resident £150 compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, to recognise the likely upset and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has reported to the Service that she is experiencing ASB from another neighbour. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss this, complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan.
  2. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her mental health conditions. It should then update its records with this information if required.