Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited (202229939)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229939

Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited

21 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy at the time of the complaint. The property was self-contained supported accommodation. The resident had a complex mental health diagnosis.
During the timeframe of the complaint, the resident was cultivating and growing plants on a small area of land directly in front the property, within the communal grounds.
The complaint concerns a neighbour, who will be referenced in this report as “the neighbour”.
The resident told us that he first reported ASB from the neighbour in September 2019, after cat faeces was placed on his doorstep. However, the earliest report of ASB from the resident we have seen about the neighbour, was during a routine welfare call with the landlord on 22 July 2022. The resident reported further incidents of ASB from the neighbour in August 2022.
The resident maintains that he made a formal complaint to the landlord in September 2022 about its handling of his reports of ASB from the neighbour. However, we have been unable to verify this from the available evidence.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB from the neighbour in November 2022 and January 2023. It opened an ASB investigation case in early February 2023. The landlord apologised on 16 February 2023 for how it had handled the resident’s previous reports of ASB and committed to a course of action to resolve the matter.
The resident told us on 28 February 2023 that the landlord had not responded to his complaint. He emailed the landlord 3 days after this, asking it to log another formal complaint about its handling of the situation with the neighbour.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement on 10 March 2023. It committed to providing a full complaint response within the next 10 working days, which did not happen. The resident voluntarily surrendered his tenancy a week after the complaint deadline passed. The landlord agreed to an early termination date in line with the resident’s wishes. The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023 and the resident left the property. The resident returned the keys to the property to the landlord in May 2023.
We communicated with the landlord several times between 31 May 2023 and 20 September 2023, directing the landlord to issue a formal complaint response in relation to the substantive matter. The landlord suggested that there were no outstanding complaints regarding its handling of ASB and gave reasons why it would not accept a new complaint.
We issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 1 November 2023 and directed it to issue a complaint response in relation to the substantive complaint by 8 November 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 November 2023 asking him to confirm his reasons for continued dissatisfaction. We notified the landlord, later the same day, that we were treating the complaint as having exhausted its formal complaint procedure, as it had not provided a substantive response within the timeframe we specified.
The resident asked us to continue investigating his complaint because he felt the landlord had neglected its legal duties, which had caused him distress, inconvenience, and had resulted in him losing his home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is evident that there continues to be dispute between parties as to whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in relation to the substantive matter of complaint between July 2022 and 10 April 2023. This being the earliest report of ASB we have seen concerning the neighbour, through to when the tenancy ended. However, we may consider events beyond this timeframe when considering the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident told us that he had reported multiple incidents of ASB over the timeframe of the complaint to the landlord about the neighbour. While we do not seek to dispute this, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to those reports of ASB, made by the resident, that we have seen.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour

The landlord’s ASB policy and handbook defines ASB as any behaviour from a resident, a member of their household or a visitor to their home, which has caused or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any person. The landlord will determine if an incident or report is ASB by examining the behaviour and the impact this is having.
According to the landlord’s ASB policy and handbook:
1. Residents can report ASB to their support coordinator or tenancy support officer, who will “chat” with them about what action is best to take. It will explain if an incident is not recorded or actioned as ASB and the reason for this.
2. The landlord will provide informants with an ASB reference number at the start of an investigation. Its initial investigation will inform the process that will be followed. It will be clear on its powers and responsibilities in respect of seeking a resolution. And as far as possible, will follow a case action plan, which may involve issuing ASB diaries, obtaining witness statements, taking evidential pictures, or capturing CCTV images, before escalating to a housing officer.
3. The landlord will deal with low level incidents of ASB via non-legal remedies. But in serious cases, it may involve the police or take legal action.
The resident told the landlord during a welfare call on 22 July 2022 that he had been having a few problems with the neighbour, who kept wrecking his garden and killing his plants. The landlord has not documented what the parties discussed during this meeting or if any course of action was proposed. This has restricted our ability to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the neighbour was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its policy commitments.
The resident told the landlord on 10 August 2023 that the neighbour had knocked over his water fountain. The landlord’s records suggest that it made a commitment to speak with the neighbour later in the week, to get their “side of the story”. The landlord’s response was proportionate to the circumstances. It was unfortunate that the landlord was unable to make contact with the neighbour as it had committed, although it is unclear what attempts the landlord made to progress this.
The resident told the landlord the following week that someone had thrown urine through his letterbox. He said he suspected his neighbour was behind this. However, provided no evidence to support this. We note that the resident referenced his mental health diagnosis during this conversation and explained the impact the situation with the neighbour was having on him. The landlord clarified that it had been unable to speak to the neighbour yet but would try again next week. Since there was no evidence that the neighbour was responsible for the incident, this was a reasonable course of action. The landlord also provided the resident with the contact details for the local mental health crisis team and Samaritans in case he was ever feeling low. This shows that the landlord was being supportive.
We were unable to verify if that the landlord spoke to the neighbour as it had committed, if it progressed any other line of enquiry, or that updated the resident with an outcome. We would expect landlords to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information fully, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions are wrong or inadequate.
There is no evidence that the resident reported any further incidents related to the neighbour until November 2022 during a routine welfare call. Again, the landlord did not make any comprehensive notes detailing what it discussed or may have agreed with the resident. But the landlord did note that the resident was “keeping his head down”, which suggests that no further action was being considered at that time.
The resident phoned the landlord on 9 January 2023 to report a series of events that had happened over the weekend, starting with the neighbour shouting through his front door and ending with the neighbour sustaining an unexplained injury and being taken to hospital. The landlord’s notes suggest that the resident was upset because the police had questioned him about what had happened to the neighbour and he was worried about getting “kicked out”. The landlord reassured him this would not happen.
We were encouraged that given the resident’s evident distress, the landlord attended the property later the same day to check on his welfare. The landlord remarked that the resident was not talking any sense, had his bags packed, and said he was ready “live on the streets”. The landlord told him that this was not the solution and that he should stay at the property where he was safe, which was good advice.
It is unclear of the parties agreed a particular course of action at this time. But the landlord held an internal meeting over the course of the next few days, to discuss the incidents over the weekend, which was positive. It also asked the police to provide clarity concerning their involvement. This shows that the landlord was treating the matter with the attention it deserved. However, we cannot verify if the landlord committed to any further course of action, as it has not provided us with a copy of its meeting notes. We note that the police clarified on 16 January 2023 that it had spoken to the resident about the neighbour as a potential witness. It stressed that its conversation with the resident was “nothing more sinister”.
The landlord and resident spoke again on 7 February 2023 during the next wellbeing check. The resident provided the landlord with an update concerning the neighbour. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if there had been any further incidents. However, the landlord did document that the resident was frustrated and that it provided reassurance about its efforts to find a resolution. While this was encouraging, we were unable to establish if the landlord had a plan for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2023 expressing concern that the landlord had not dealt with the neighbour. The resident explained in greater detail what happened when the police questioned him, after the neighbour was injured. He suggested that the resident had informed the police that he was somehow involved and unless the landlord took action, he would terminate his tenancy. It is clear that this event caused a great deal of distress and alarm to the resident. However, the landlord was not responsible for the actions of the police.
The landlord contacted the resident promptly, the same day, to see how it could help. The landlord asked the resident if he had been keeping an incident diary and had been reporting incidents to the police. While the resident clarified he had not, we were unable to verify that the landlord had suggested he do this before. The landlord explained that it was unable to serve the neighbour with an ASB notice based solely on his account. It suggested that without evidence such as police logs, closed circuit television evidence, and witness testimonies, it would be difficult to take any formal action. This was reasonable advice and shows that it was trying to manage the resident’s expectations about the measures it could or could not take in relation to the matter.
The landlord followed up this conversation the following day by email. The landlord:
1. Apologised for any upset that the resident had been caused by the way his ASB complaint had been handled by previous a member of its staff.
2. Noted that it had raised a safeguarding concern, following recent incidents with the neighbour. While we do not seek to dispute this, we could not verify this from the available evidence.
3. Confirmed that an ASB complaint had been formally recorded. It explained how the matter would be investigated in the first instance, which included obtaining a statement summarising the ASB history; identifying other witnesses; obtaining further information relevant to the case; and updating support plans and vulnerability risk assessments to ensure the right measures and support were in place.
4. Committed to supporting the resident and the alleged perpetrator to modify their behaviour to resolve the ASB and nuisance.
5. Committed to keeping the resident informed of the actions it was taking.
6. Said it would support the resident to secure alternative accommodation if this was his wish. But said it did not want the resident to feel that he had to terminate his tenancy under these circumstances. It explained that ASB matters were not always resolved quickly and seeking possession of someone’s tenancy would always be the last resort.
The landlord’s response was empathetic and shows that it was taking responsibility for the failings it itself had identified. It was positive that the landlord set out the steps that it would take to investigate the matter and the support that it was able to offer. The landlord’s commitment of action was in line with its policy.
The landlord sent a formal acknowledgement of the resident’s allegation of ASB the same day, in line with its ASB policy. It said it would investigate the resident’s “complaint” within 10 working days, enclosed a copy of it is ASB policy, and offered him an interview for 15 February 2023. Landlords should consider the terminology they use when acknowledging a report of ASB, so it does not confuse the resident into thinking that it is investigating the matter as a formal complaint under its complaint policy.
The landlord interviewed the resident on 15 February 2023 as it had committed. The parties agreed that the landlord would interview other residents and the neighbour, to aid its investigation. This was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances. However, we could not verify that it updated the resident’s support plan or vulnerability risk assessment as it previously committed.
The landlord contacted the witnesses identified by the resident in a timely manner, on the same day. It was unfortunate that they were unable to provide the landlord with any helpful information.
The landlord emailed the resident the following day to explain the outcome of its investigation, which shows that it was endeavouring to keep the resident informed. It did not reference speaking to the neighbour, which suggests that it had not spoken to them at this point. But the landlord did:
1. Acknowledge again, that it had not handled the resident’s “complaint” as it would have expected.
2. Clarify the best course of action was to monitor the situation with the neighbour and act on any similar “complaints” as soon as possible.
3. Recognise the impact the situation was having on the resident’s mental wellbeing and said it was keen to ensure nothing like that happened again.
4. Explain that it had spoken to other resident’s and had guided them how to handle situations like this in the future.
5. Advise that the resident that he could submit an appeal if he was unhappy with its response.
There is no evidence that the resident exercised his right to appeal, which suggests he accepted the landlord’s position and was satisfied with the landlord’s action plan.
The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 17 February 2023 about the situation between them and the resident. The landlord noted a keenness from the neighbour for the parties to get on with their lives in a peaceful manner. The neighbour asked the landlord to share some personal details about them with the resident to help with his understanding of her situation. Given this, the landlord might have taken the opportunity to discuss the merits arranging some mediation. The landlord could then have presented this option to the resident, subject to a positive response.
It is unclear if the landlord had opportunity to update the resident on the outcome of its meeting before he experienced more conflict with the neighbour. The resident told the landlord on 23 February 2023 that he just seeded the garden when the neighbour started “dancing all over it”. It is understood that there was another incident involving the neighbour on 2 March 2023. From information shared by the landlord with the local community safety partnership, the neighbour was given verbal warning for the inconvenience they had caused to the resident. We do not underestimate the upset the resident may have felt at this time. But based on the evidence the landlord had, this would have been a proportionate response to the situation.
The resident shared video evidence with the landlord on 10 March 2023 which he said showed the neighbour’s visitor throwing a substance onto his flowerbed. The resident suggested the individual had done this to kill his plants. The landlord told the community safety partnership on 14 March 2023 that it was arranging to speak to the neighbour’s visitor about this, who normally visited the scheme every 2 weeks. This was a reasonable course of action given that the landlord would have needed to obtain the visitor’s understanding of the situation before considering if further action was required.
The resident emailed the landlord multiple times between 3 March 2023 and 30 March 2023 asking it to confirm its intentions towards resolving his reports of ASB. He suggested that the landlord was playing down the neighbour’s actions and confirmed that he would be seeking a community trigger review of his own, because he suspected the landlord had no intention of doing anything about the neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord does not appear to be communicating with the resident at all over this period. While we appreciate that the landlord may have been considering its next steps, it was unfair not to have acknowledged the resident’s communications or given him an expected timescale for providing a response. It is evident that the landlord’s continued silence caused the resident distress and its lack of reassurance led him to question the landlord’s previous commitment to finding a resolution.
The evidence shows that the landlord held an internal case meeting after becoming concerned by the content of some of the resident’s emails over this timeframe. We were unable to verify the date of this meeting. But it was positive that the landlord committed to seeking advice and support from adult social care as it was concerned for the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. We note that the landlord contacted them on 23 March 2023. The landlord also committed to addressing the resident’s behaviour directly with him. However, it appears that the resident surrendered his tenancy before it was able to progress this.
It is of concern that the resident felt he had no option but to surrender is tenancy due to the landlord’s “negligence and incompetence”, in its handling of his reports of ASB. As previously referenced, the landlord showed initial concern in February 2023 when the resident first mentioned he was inclined to terminate his tenancy. It responded at this time by putting a course of action in motion, which reassured the resident of its commitment to finding a resolution. It is clear that the lack of communication from the landlord during March 2023 caused him to doubt the landlord’s previous commitment. But ultimately it was the resident’s choice to surrender his tenancy.
We do not doubt that the situation with his neighbour was distressing for the resident. The landlord identified that there were inadequacies in its handling of his earlier reports of ASB, prior to the resident raising his formal complaint in March 2023. The landlord apologised once this was identified and took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its obligations.
We appreciate that the resident may have wanted the landlord to take formal action against the neighbour. But the landlord would have been unable to pursue formal action, such as an injunction or eviction, without having strong supporting evidence showing that the ASB was serious and prolonged. The courts would have expected the landlord to demonstrate that it had tried to resolve the matter informally first, which it was trying to do. And that it had involved external partners in finding a resolution, where appropriate, such as the police and local community safety partnership, which again it did.
We would have made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour, had it not been for the lack of reassurance the landlord gave the resident during March 2023 after he questioned its intentions for addressing his reports of ASB. Given the evident distress and inconvenience this caused the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to pay £100 compensation.
This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which was not appropriately acknowledged but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

We contacted the landlord on 9 November 2023 after we identified the landlord’s complaint policy was not fully compliant with the Code. We explained for example, that the Code requires landlords to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. But the landlord’s complaint policy did not include reference to this timescale. We recognise that the landlord was eager to work with us to bring its complaints policy in line with our expectations under the Code.
Our investigation will consider the landlord’s actions against the complaint policy that the landlord had in operation at the time of the complaint. This said the landlord would acknowledge “complaints” within 5 working days and issue a full complaint response within 10 working days. However, the landlord would contact the complainant if it needed more time to complete the complaint investigation and would confirm when the full complaint response will be issued.
The first formal complaint we have seen from the resident in relation to the substantive issue was on 3 March 2023. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement on 10 March 2023, which was within the expected response timescale under its complaints policy. It committed to providing a full complaint response within the next 10 working days. However, this did not happen and it did not write to the resident explaining that it needed more time to investigate. This was inappropriate and left the resident unclear of its intentions.
While the resident may have surrendered his tenancy at the beginning of April 2023 it was still obliged to progress the complaint that it had formally accepted, logged, and acknowledged, through its internal complaint process.
We wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 directing it to provide the resident with a complaint response. The landlord said that it had previously dealt with the resident’s ASB complaint and as such, would not be doing so again. But it did not provide evidence that the complaint had been through, and had exhausted, its formal complaints procedure.
We issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on the landlord on 1 November 2023, after determining that it had failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). To put this right, we ordered the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response in relation to the substantive matter by 8 November 2023.
The landlord felt there were mitigating factors due to the way the resident was progressing the complaint. But accepted our position and wrote to the resident on 10 November 2023, asking him to clarify his outstanding issues. It was appropriate that the landlord sought clarity if it was unclear. But this should have been progressed in a timelier manner, given we ordered it to issue the stage 1 complaint response by 8 November 2023.
We wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2023 acknowledging that it had made some attempt to contact the resident. But said we were treating the complaint as having exhausted its formal complaint procedure because it had not provided the resident with a substantive response and had responded outside of the timeframe we specified.
The landlord told the resident on 16 November 2023 that it was willing to mediate with the resident to resolve his complaint if he was also willing to do so, which was in line with its complaint policy. While the resident said it was too late for mediation, we were encouraged by the landlord’s late commitment to resolve the complaint.
The resident told the landlord that it should pay£1,800 compensation to resolve the complaint, which would allow him to secure accommodation in the private rented sector. The landlord showed fairness by considering the resident’s request and providing him with a reasoned response. Ultimately, the landlord did not agree to pay the compensation the resident had requested because it was satisfied that it had investigated the resident’s allegations about ASB and it had taken appropriate action. It also noted that the resident had surrendered his own tenancy.
The resident told us that the landlord issued several tenancy warning letters to him during the timeframe of the complaint. The resident suggested that the landlord only did this because he was complaining about its handling of ASB. The resident appears to have raised this as an issue with the landlord a few days after it acknowledged the resident’s original complaint.
The Code states that where a resident raises a new point of complaint during a complaint investigation, this should be incorporated into its stage 1 complaint response. However, if this could unreasonably delay issue of the original complaint response, it should raise a new complaint. Therefore, we would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s further point of dissatisfaction and explained how it intended to deal with this. There is no evidence that it did, which was inappropriate and left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed progressing the resident’s complaint through its internal complaint process, which created distress and inconvenience for the resident. It did not acknowledge how it was going to deal with further points of dissatisfaction raised by the resident after it issued the initial complaint acknowledgement. We were encouraged by the landlord’s belated offer of mediation. But the detriment caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling remains outstanding.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there was a failure which adversely the resident and the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
The landlord must pay £250 compensation directly to the resident, which is broken down as follows:
1. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident when the landlord failed to reassure the resident in March 2023 about its intentions for dealing with his reports of ASB from the neighbour.
2. £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should reflect on the issues that surfaced in this case in relation to the following, and then act accordingly as may be appropriate:
1. The adequacy of its record keeping and information management and the measures that it may need to put in place to improve this.
2. Its use of the word “complaint” when acknowledging reports of ASB under its ASB policy, which may confuse residents into thinking it has raised a formal complaint under its complaint policy.