Amplius Living (202428167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428167

Amplius Living

31 July 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:
1. Reports of the condition of the property, including repairs to improve ventilation in the property and to address damp and mould.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour from neighbours and visitors to the building including noise, smoking and the use and supply of drugs.
3. Request for CCTV to be installed.
4. The associated complaint.
5. Reports of inappropriate allocations under the local authority’s allocations policy.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 30 October 2017. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has health conditions including Aspergers Syndrome, respiratory issues, hypersensitivity of the pharynx and larynx. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block of 6.
Between 1 March 2022 to 22 July 2022, the resident made 4 reports of antisocial behaviour incidents involving her neighbour. She reported unauthorised occupants, noise disturbance at night from the neighbour’s visitors and alleged that the neighbour was involved in the use and supply of drugs and begging.
On 12 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report the need for improved ventilation in her property. She said her windows did not open much and she could smell smoke from cigarettes and cannabis. She reported deep mould in the bathroom and that her extractor fans required replacement.
On 25 April 2023, the landlord raised a formal complaint concerning the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. From the landlord’s records the date of the resident’s complaint is unknown.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 June 2023. It said it was going to visit the resident’s neighbour with the police on 8 June 2023. It had provided the noise app and information on the council’s environment health service on noise nuisance. It requested the resident to provide evidence of the antisocial behaviour and to report illegal activity to the police. It found no service failure.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint by phone on 8 June 2023. The details of the conversation during this call are not fully known.
The landlord wrote to the resident regarding the escalation request on 9 June 2023. It refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 advising that the stage 2 process is “purely to ensure that the complaints process was followed correctly and any issues raised were answered within the stage 1 resolution letter”. It said that the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould had not been raised at stage 1 of its complaints process and advised the resident to log any complaint about this issue. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether the resident requested the inclusion of the landlord’s handling of her report of damp and mould during her escalation request phone call of 8 June 2023.
The resident continued to report antisocial behaviour. Her MP raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf on 18 December 2024. The resident said she was dissatisfied with:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports concerning her living conditions including damp and mould advising that she has respiratory problems due to this.
2. The council’s choice of tenants under its policy who she reported had a negative effect on her.
3. The landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour including its failure to evict troublemakers.
4. The landlord’s refusal to install video and audio monitoring equipment to provide evidence to prosecute and evict tenants and their visitors.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2025. It said:
1. It had undertaken several visits to investigate the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the property. This included sealing the soil stack and bathroom pipework to prevent external airflow. It was not responsible for installing a larger window or cooker hood that the resident had previously requested. It had requested a surveyor to visit the property to investigate the resident’s concerns.
2. It had made a request for CCTV.
3. There was a lack of credible evidence about the reported antisocial behaviour. It had attempted legal action earlier in 2023 to request a closure order from the Police following a serious incident. However, this was refused. The resident had supplied ring doorbell evidence, however, as the resident did not want to be identified it was unable to use this.
4. It was unable to find service failure.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 9 February 2025. Along with the issues previously reported at stage 1, she said that there was a leak at the top of the pipes near the bathroom. She said that the landlord’s work to seal the pipework had reduced smoke coming into her property though it still happened at times. She said that the landlord should amend its antisocial behaviour policy and gain independent evidence.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 February 2025. It reiterated its stage 1 response and said its surveyor had visited the property on 6 December 2023, 9 July 2024 and 12 February 2025 and no issues with damp and mould were found. The extractor fan in the kitchen was found to be working well. No further antisocial behaviour had been reported since it issued a stage 3 warning letter to the resident’s neighbour. It only required the resident’s logs monthly which would support her chronic fatigue but give enough evidence to act. It would consider installing CCTV and hoped that this would be installed soon as it working with a CCTV provider. It found no service failure.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to us on 27 February 2025. As a remedy the resident was seeking for the landlord to properly ventilate her property, for CCTV to be installed to monitor the antisocial behaviour and for the damp and mould to be investigated and resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Under 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion would be more appropriately dealt with by another body. In this case, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate allocations under the local authority’s housing allocations policy falls under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, this complaint issue is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

Where a complaint concerns antisocial behaviour, the Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the antisocial behaviour itself. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour reports and whether it followed its policy and procedures.
The resident raised some additional issues with us about fly-tipping, asbestos, fire safety concerns regarding the communal fire alarms, security concerns regarding the front entrance door, adaptations, and the car park lighting. These issues have not been raised or considered as a formal complaint to her landlord. If the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of these issues, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with her landlord. This will give her landlord the opportunity to investigate its handling of these issues.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident’s initial antisocial behaviour report was made on 17 December 2021. However, the resident’s initial complaint about the antisocial behaviour was logged by the landlord on 25 April 2023. This was when the first reference to her complaint issue of damp and mould was also evident. This investigation focusses on the period from March 2022 prior to the resident’s complaint being made to the landlord to the date of its final complaint response of 28 February 2025.
The resident referred to the impact of the landlord’s actions concerning her reports of damp and mould, a lack of suitable ventilation and the impact of antisocial behaviour on her health. We do not doubt the resident’s statement. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been impacted by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury, are best suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property, including repairs to improve ventilation in the property and to address damp and mould

According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported issues with damp and mould in her property and lack of ventilation on 12 October 2022. She also reported issues of smoke entering her property from other residents from cigarettes, cannabis and cocaine. The issue of smoke linked to her concerns about the ventilation within the property. However, ventilation was also related to the reported issues of damp and mould. She wished the landlord to improve ventilation of the property by installing better extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. She also asked for a suitably qualified person to check for damp and mould.
The landlord’s emailed the resident on 25 October 2022 where it provided general advice. This advice was very much based on lifestyle issues. It talked about the resident using the extractor fan and opening the windows for ventilation. It also cautioned about drying clothes and ensuring the resident wipes down wet or damp areas after bathing/showering. It provided its repairs team number if the resident needed to report repairs. The focus on lifestyle issues was typical of issues that we find in our casework. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report (February 2023) also picked up on landlords’ use of lifestyle issues. The landlord also failed to raise any inspection to check for damp and mould, which would be expected to determine whether any repairs were required. This was inappropriate.
The Spotlight report above highlights a number of recommendations concerning damp and mould that focusses on the landlord investigating root causes. The landlord has since completed a self-assessment against the report’s recommendations in December 2023 which was appropriate. It has since put a specialist team in place and will use surveyors along with specialist equipment. However, there is no evidence that a further self-assessment has taken place, and the landlord should therefore review this. This is particularly important given the forthcoming introduction of Awaab’s Law that will apply from October 2025.
The landlord’s repairing responsibilities are set out within the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in Section 11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The landlord is obliged to keep the property fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 from the beginning and throughout the tenancy. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case. The landlord’s repair policy applicable at this time stated that it would respond to routine repairs within 28 calendar days maximum.
The resident reported damp and mould, and the smell from smoke present in the property again on 2 March 2023, 5 months’ later. In response, the landlord raised a works order, and it booked an appointment for 3 April 2023 for the extractor fans. The landlord’s records state that its contractor replaced the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans on 11 April 2023. The landlord’s records detailed access issues preventing the earlier completion of the works. It is unknown whether the landlord pre-booked appointments which would have been appropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities that it was aware of from at least January 2022. Had the landlord not put the onus on the resident to report repair issues after her initial report of damp and mould on 12 October 2022, this work could have been completed sooner. Taking the resident’s earlier report into account, it took 182 days to complete repairs which was unreasonable.
There were some conflicting contractor reports concerning repairs required to tackle damp and mould and associated ventilation issues. One contractor reported on 13 April 2023 that there were holes around the pipes and mould above the windows that needed to be washed. Another contractor reported on 27 April 2023 that was no mould present. The landlord raised a further repair on 28 June 2023 which had been sent to its complex works team. There was delay in progressing the work. The resident had to chase the landlord twice concerning the repairs on 17 and 27 July 2023 and the landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident which was unreasonable. The resident was understandably concerned due to her respiratory problems and she also reported that clothing and toilet rolls had gone mouldy. The landlord received its contractor’s quotation on 15 August 2023 to overhaul the extractor fans, wash surfaces in the bathroom and apply sealant around the bath. The work was not completed until 10 November 2023. The 136-day (19 weeks) delay was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
The resident reported damp and mould again on 5 December 2023 when she said that the contractor had not replaced the kitchen fan. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property within a reasonable timescale on 7 December 2023. The landlord reported that there was no sign of damp and mould and that the fan was fully functioning in the kitchen. However, no specialist equipment was used to measure the damp levels as would be expected. This could have reassured the resident if no damp was found or works orders could have been raised where appropriate. It said that the mould in the bathroom had not returned since the new fan was installed. It raised a works order to clean up mould around the external window frame.
The landlord visit to the resident’s property on 7 February 2024 indicated that it might be possible for smoke to get through the soil stack and pipework. It noted that the resident had serious breathing issues and said it would ask if the pipework could be filled with expanding foam in the bathroom and to seal the pipework in the cupboard where there was an identified gap in the join. The resident also requested a new extractor fan in the kitchen at the time. The landlord’s contractor visited again on 1 March 2024 to clean mould off the outside cladding around the windows within its repair policy timescale which was reasonable. However, its contractor was unable to reach the windows as they were on the second floor and the appointment needed rearranging. The landlord’s communication with its contractor was lacking as it needed to make the contractor aware of working at height and failed to do so.
Following further contact from the resident between 1 – 13 March 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the property again on 13 March 2024, just outside of the repair policy time limits. The contractor sealed the vent pipe and requested an inspection of the flat roof as the plastic was green on the outside. The landlord raised a works order the same day to investigate the flat roof which was appropriate. However, it refused to put in expandable foam around the pipes in the bathroom as this was not a repair. A repair relates to an existing component, so the landlord was therefore under no obligation to provide this additional work.
The landlord reconsidered its decision concerning the expanding foam and raised a works order on 12 June 2024 completing the work to fill in the pipework with expanding foam on 9 July 2024. This was completed within the repairs policy timescale which was reasonable. The resident reported in her complaint escalation request of 9 February 2025 that this work had some positive impact in reducing the smoke entering the property.
At the same time the landlord checked for signs of damp and mould and checked the kitchen extractor fan which it reported as working well. The landlord found no damp and mould. However, once again there is no evidence that it used specialist equipment to check levels of damp such as a damp meter, despite its self assessment that was in place by then saying that it would use specialist equipment. A visual inspection alone would not give conclusive evidence that there was no damp to alleviate the resident’s concerns. The lack of a thorough investigation was inappropriate. The landlord’s inspection reports, whilst containing photographs, did not have an adequate description of its findings or why certain repairs had been raised or not. This indicated issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
It is vital that landlords keep complete and accurate records so that it can appropriately advise its residents and to keep track of repair issues. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) gives several recommendations. The landlord should consider its self-assessment against these recommendations to help it to improve its record keeping.
The resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on 18 June 2024 to report concerns about damp in the cupboard and a musty damp smell. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 9 July 2024 which was a delayed response. The landlord’s surveyor reported no damp or ventilation issues and that the fan was working. The landlord did raise a works order to seal the pipework in the cupboard to the roof. It completed the work on 15 July 2024 within the repair policy timescales.
The landlord inspected the property on 29 January 2025 and 12 February 2025 reporting no further work was necessary. After the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord raised a works order on 20 March 2025 to change the passive vents in the internal walls to those that could be opened and closed. The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 8 May 2025, and the landlord raised a further works order for the kitchen extractor fan. The landlord has since advised us that it installed a cooker hood and extractor fan in the kitchen following its surveyor’s visit of 23 July 2025. However, the resident still reported damp and mould issues to the date of this determination
The Ombudsman considers that the failings in progressing repairs, record keeping issues, its communication with the resident and lack of appropriate investigations using appropriate equipment amount to maladministration, for which orders have been made. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £300. This comprises £200 in respect of the delays in completing work and the inconclusive investigations, and £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing a suitable resolution.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from neighbours and visitors to the property:

The resident’s initial reports of antisocial behaviour from December 2021 to February 2022 led to the landlord serving a stage 2 warning letter to the neighbour on 1 March 2022. The resident continued to report noise nuisance and begging issues, along with allegations of drug misuse at her neighbour’s property. The landlord suitably updated the resident’s brother, who was a representative at the time on 14 March 2022 of its actions.
According to the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy the landlord should respond to high-risk incidents within 1 working day and other incidents within 5 working days. It should provide a named officer and complete its initial assessment. It should review the vulnerability of both the resident reporting the antisocial behaviour and the alleged perpetrator. It should then complete further risk assessments throughout the case. It will agree an initial action plan with the resident reporting antisocial behaviour. It will complete further action plans as appropriate until case closure.
The landlord’s records show that it completed an action plan in line with its policy on 21 January 2022. It was reasonably proactive in its communication with the resident’s social worker and her brother during the resident’s early reports of antisocial behaviour in January 2022. Its assessment of the case led to appropriate action to serve the neighbour a stage 2 warning letter on 1 March 2022. It also checked with the resident’s brother 2 weeks’ later to see if the warning was effective. It also asked the resident if she required support in its email of 29 March 2022 to which the resident said she would contact if required. These were all reasonable actions to take in line with its policy.
However, there is no record of a risk assessment until 23 May 2023, nearly a year and half later when the case was identified as high risk. A risk assessment should be one of the earliest actions that a landlord takes as identified from our recent Learning from Severe Maladministration report (July 2025) available on our website. The landlord should review this report and its recommendations to improve its approach to antisocial behaviour case management around risk assessments. There is no record the landlord revisited the risk assessment which was inappropriate.
The resident continued to report the antisocial behaviour issues from the neighbour’s property throughout the investigation period from 2022 to 2025 making multiple reports. The landlord generally responded to her emails within a reasonable time, usually the same day or within a couple of days which was appropriate. Though it was usually to answer the resident’s emails rather than proactively managing its communication with the resident. It would have been beneficial to agree with the resident as part of its action planning a frequency for providing updates to better manage this. There is no record that it did this which would have been appropriate. The landlord should consider this approach where there are multiple emails from residents to appropriate manage the case.
The landlord was in contact with the police with the allegations of criminal activity and was given a police statement on 28 March 2022 that contained evidence of a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. At this point it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review its action plan and to consider further action that it could take. However, there is no record of an action plan review which was inappropriate. The landlord’s records evidence a further review of the action plan on 18 April 2023, over a year later but there is no further record of a review after this point. This, along with the lack of actions recorded in the action plan, evidence issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
There was some positive engagement with the police seen throughout the investigation. The landlord reached out to the police on several occasions to ask if the police would patrol the area, or for evidence which was reasonable. However, there was an unreasonable 3-month delay in the landlord setting up an initial meeting with the police. The landlord’s file note of 22 April 2022 said it had agreed to set up a meeting with the police and its legal enforcement representative, but the meeting did not occur until 27 July 2022. At the meeting the police had agreed to consider a partial closure order, however it advised the landlord on 1 September 2022 that it could not proceed with this. It also pointed out to the landlord that as it was a lead agency, it should consider acting under the terms of the written agreement such as a Notice of Seeking Possession. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered a further warning or Notice of Seeking Possession after its stage 2 warning letter and the further police evidence which was inappropriate.
Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, landlords also have powers to address persistent ASB through tools such as civil injunctions and community protection notices and closure orders. Landlords can also consider the use of professional witnesses in cases where there is evidence of antisocial behaviour and there is difficulty in obtaining evidence from witnesses such as witness statements. This can be due to vulnerabilities as in this case, or also where there is a fear of repercussions. The landlord failed to consider or make use of the range of tools available. It did on one occasion consider using the housing officer as a witness but then appeared to rule this out reporting that it could take up to 2 years to gather evidence. It is not clear on what basis it felt this was the case from the landlord’s records. It could have also considered other professional witnesses but failed to consider this. It considered CCTV considered below as another way of gathering evidence on the resident’s request and the police suggestion.
The evidence shows that the landlord’ s actions included the issuing of written warning letters on 1 March 2022, 22 March 2023, 10 May 2024 and finally the stage 3 warning letter that it served on the neighbour on 18 October 2024. It completed home visits to the neighbour’s address on 15 June 2022. It also visited the neighbour again on 8 June 2023 with the police in attendance and on 29 August 2024. These were all reasonable actions, however, as mentioned it would have been appropriate to consider using the full range of tools available.
The landlord’s records show that it sought some legal advice at various points and its legal enforcement team were due to attend the meeting on 27 July 2022, but the landlord’s records are unclear what the advice was. It also advised the resident’s brother on 12 January 2023 that it would seek further legal advice. However, it is unclear when or if that happened at this time. This evidenced that the landlord’s record keeping was not sufficiently robust.
During the case management from the period investigated from March 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 28 February 2025, the landlord closed the case several times. For example, it closed the case on 23 March 2022 which was just after the resident reporting that her carers had noticed a strong smell of cannabis in her email of 18 March 2022. It closed the case again on 28 July 2022 recording that the noise issues were much better. The landlord’s records do not indicate why it felt that the noise issues were much better or whether the resident had advised it of this again indicating record keeping issues. It closed the case again on 4 April 2023 and then opened the case again on 18 April 2023 completing a further action plan. It closed the case on 20 February 2024 stating that it would not reopen a case unless there was further evidence. The landlord’s policy does not give a position on closing antisocial behaviour cases. It is also not clear whether the landlord provided any position on case closures to the resident to help to manage her expectations. Whilst it is understandable that a landlord cannot keep cases open indefinitely, particularly where there have been no incidents, this was not always the case. The landlord’s actions were therefore inappropriate.
The landlord frequently asked the resident to provide evidence, saying that it lacked sufficient evidence to take legal action. It explained the need for evidence to the resident’s brother on 20 December 2022 and noted that he understood the need for this at this point. However, the landlord needed to ensure that this was understood from the start. The landlord was likely to have caused the resident confusion when it told her in its email of 24 May 2022 that she did not need to record incidents using the app or diary sheets but then kept asking her to do this. The resident’s brother told the landlord on 22 December 2022 about the difficulties that the resident would have in recording incidents. He offered to talk to the carers to help provide evidence and there were records provided in January 2023 from the carers concerning cannabis use.
The landlord’s revised antisocial behaviour policy from 17 December 2024 says that the landlord will where practicable, tailor and adapt our services to suit the needs of customers and support vulnerable people. This is a positive change to its previous policy dated 26 February 2021 that does not refer to residents with additional needs or vulnerabilities in its approach to tackling antisocial behaviour.
The resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on 18 June 2024 advising the landlord that the antisocial behaviour was impacting on the resident’s health. In the landlord’s email of the same date, the landlord asked if the support worker could help the resident to report issues providing detailed information and to report the issues to the police and obtain a reference number. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have been appropriate for the landlord to be more proactive in seeking support for the resident to record incidents.
In her second escalation request of 22 February 2025, the resident said that the landlord had refused to fund extra care to log each “onerous complaint”. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the resident had requested paid extra care support or not. The landlord said in its final complaint response of 28 February 2025 that if the resident needed support to get in touch, putting the onus on the resident to make contact about the support she would need. This was different to the support it offered to the resident in its email of 15 November 2024 when it offered to phone the resident so that she could relay the incident information so it could record this for her. The landlord needed to consider any reasonable adjustments considering its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in its communication with the resident, however, there is no records that it did this which was inappropriate.
The landlord also needed to be clear what evidence it needed and what would stand up to legal scrutiny. The resident said in her email of 13 December 2024 that she could not understand why the landlord had not previously advised of the evidence requirement for a successful eviction or given practical examples of this. The provision of practical examples was a useful learning point that the landlord could consider so expectations are clear. Its email to the resident and other residents the same date provided this, but this clarity needed to happen at a much earlier point.
Partnership working is crucial when tackling antisocial behaviour with the police, environmental health and other agencies such as social services and drug and alcohol services. Information sharing should be conducted in line with data protection requirements and in the best interests of resolving the issue. There was evidence of some reasonable partnership working such as the joint meetings of 10 August 2022 and 16 February 2023. The landlord also reported the instance of rough sleepers associated with the neighbour accessing the building on 6 July 2023 to relevant services such as the rough sleeping team and drug and alcohol services. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take. However, the resident’s social worker had to chase up the landlord to arrange a meeting on 25 July 2022 and January 2023 indicating that the landlord’s communication with social services could have been better.
The landlord did follow up with the resident on its actions when it sent warning letters to advise of the action taken which was reasonable. On 10 May 2024 following an alleged kidnapping and assault at the neighbour’s address, the landlord appropriately phoned the resident to update her. It said that it had asked other witnesses to keep diary sheets and said that the resident agreed to do this as well for a few weeks and to provide an impact statement. Again, it is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the landlord offered any additional support including signposting to emotional support to the resident at this time which would been appropriate as she would have been traumatised by this incident.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 January 2025, the landlord indicated that it had been contacted by the police and would be meeting again to discuss a partial closure order. It would contact the resident and other witnesses. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 28 February 2025, it said that the case remained open. It has since arranged for the resident to complete a housing transfer application.
In summary, there were multiple reports made by the resident of antisocial behaviour over a long period of time from 2022 to the date of this determination. The landlord had taken some action to visit the perpetrator, issue warning letters and liaise with the police and other agencies. However, it needed to consider the full range of tools available to it to address the antisocial behaviour. It failed to properly complete risk assessments and to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities that would make it more difficult for her to record incidents or to make use of the noise app. It needed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 for any reasonable adjustments that the resident needed. There were some delays in the landlord’s handling of the case. The landlord’s record keeping was insufficient, and it inappropriately closed the case on several occasions causing unnecessary confusion and distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that these failings combined amount to maladministration for which orders have been made.
Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £700. This comprises £300 in respect of the identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the case, its record keeping, lack of risk assessment and consideration of reasonable adjustments and support for the resident along with the inappropriate case closures. It also comprises £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident recognising the greater impact on her due to her disability.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed

The landlord’s records evidence that CCTV was discussed internally on 19 April 2022. In a meeting with the resident’s brother on 23 August 2022, the landlord advised that its request for CCTV was refused but it would ask again.
The landlord had also requested whether the police would install CCTV on 30 August 2022 following the resident’s brother’s further request. It phoned the resident to update her on 6 September 2022 which was appropriate to advise it was still awaiting the outcome. It also discussed the possibility of a video doorbell. Its records state that it was not disputed by either party that this would be as it would directly link the resident who was vulnerable to the video evidence.
The landlord’s CCTV and surveillance policy states that the installation of CCTV is designed for the prevention and detection of antisocial behaviour and crime. It states that the landlord would need to establish a lawful basis to justify the need to install CCTV cameras that is proportionate to the identified problem. It would need to consult with residents, the police, local authorities, or other relevant stakeholders. It would also install signage to alert that there was CCTV in place.
There was a 9-month delay until the landlord reconsidered installing CCTV again with no record of the outcome of the previous request indicating record keeping issues. It told the resident on 7 July 2023 that it had requested CCTV again following issues with rough sleepers associated with the resident’s neighbour gaining access to the building. It advised the resident that there would be no guarantee that its request would be successful. It said that it could take months to install. It also reiterated that it would consider CCTV during its face-to-face meeting with the resident on 14 August 2023.
The resident asked again in a further email of 2 January 2024 for CCTV to be installed. In the landlord’s response the following day it backtracked and said that the resident could ask permission to install this or to install a video doorbell providing a link to seek permission. The landlord’s CCTV policy does not indicate that it would be appropriate for a resident to install CCTV cameras in a block of flats. There would be data protection implications and as the policy says, it would need signage to alert others that CCTV was in place. There would be a question over who would maintain this as well. This was therefore an inappropriate response. It was correct to say that the resident could consider a video doorbell and request permission for this as it would not be a repair that the landlord was responsible for under its repairs policy. The landlord’s communication was reactive rather than proactive to provide suitable updates to the resident which was inappropriate. It caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident to keep chasing up the landlord for an outcome.
The landlord said in a further 2 emails to the resident of 10 October 2024 and 15 November 2024, that it was unable to update on the CCTV request but had discussed it. It also said that there may be no budget until the following year. This indicated that the landlord was still considering CCTV. It again said it was considering this in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 January 2022. The resident pointed out in her escalation request of 9 February 2025 that unless CCTV was installed, the landlord would have insufficient evidence to act against her neighbour. With the evidence gathering issues identified above, this needed to be a consideration. It took the landlord nearly 3 years to give the resident its final position in its stage 2 complaint response of 28 February 2025. on her request for CCTV. Though the Ombudsman recognises that there would be funding implications and that the request was refused initially, the delay was still unreasonable.
The landlord said in its final response that it was working with a CCTV provider and was hoping that this would soon be installed. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it has installed CCTV or provided a response to the resident as to when it will be installed.
The Ombudsman considers that due to the unreasonable delays and communication issues that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed.
Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies above, a fair level of compensation would be £300. This comprises £200 in respect of the unreasonable delay and poor communication and £100 recognising the further distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing the landlord for a response.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

There was evidence of a reluctance of the landlord to raise a formal complaint. In its email to the resident of 27 July 2022, the landlord said it would not forward the resident’s formal complaint “as agreed” while it was investigating the antisocial behaviour. This was inappropriate. If the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her antisocial behaviour case, then the landlord needed to log a formal complaint for investigation. There was further evidence of this on 5 April 2023 when the resident’s brother also asked to whom a complaint should be made with no evidence of an appropriate response to this question other than providing some contact details on 11 April 2023.
The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 April 2023 concerning the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on 6 June 2023. This was unreasonably delayed as it was not sent until 28 working days after it raised the resident’s complaint. There is no record that a delayed response was agreed with the resident which was inappropriate.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident phoned the landlord to escalate the complaint on 8 June 2023. The landlord’s records were incomplete as the resident’s initial report of damp and mould as a complaint issue is not known. The landlord needed to keep appropriate records so that it could keep track of the issues that the resident raised as new complaint issues. It also needed to consider raising a new complaint regarding the damp and mould, but it failed to do so in its 9 June 2023 stage 2 closure letter putting the onus on the resident to raise a complaint about this.
In the landlord’s stage 2 closure letter on 9 June 2023, it refused to escalate the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s explanation of why it would not escalate the complaint was inappropriate. Contrary to what the landlord said about the stage 2 process being “purely to ensure that the complaints process was followed correctly at stage 1 and any issues raised were answered within the stage 1 resolution letter”. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that if “all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. The landlord therefore did not act reasonably or follow the Code’s requirements as the resident remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It may extend by a further 10 working days in communication with a resident. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. It may extend this by a further 20 working days in agreement with the resident.
There was further evidence of the landlord’s gatekeeping of its complaints process preventing the resident from raising a further complaint. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour and repairs to address damp and mould in her emails of 11 March 2024 (in which she specifically asked the landlord about its complaints process). She said she wanted to make a formal complaint on 17 July 2024 checking on 23 October 2024 whether a complaint had been raised. It was not reasonable for the landlord to deny the opportunity for the resident to raise a complaint. It was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code. The resident would undoubtedly have felt ignored by the landlord’s reluctance to raise a complaint and to take matters seriously.
The landlord’s failure to log a complaint demonstrated a lack of empathy and consideration of its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It needed to consider the resident’s needs and any reasonable adjustments to make it easier for the resident to access its complaints process. There is no record that the landlord did this which was unreasonable causing the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble. It was only when the resident’s MP raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf on 18 December 2024 that the landlord then recorded as a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2025. This was delayed as it was sent 23 working days after the complaint was made with no evidence of an acknowledgement being sent. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 9 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2025. The landlord’s response was sent within its policy and Code timescales which was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord showed reluctance in logging the resident’s complaints when she expressed dissatisfaction which was unreasonable and not in line with its policy or the Code. It also failed to escalate her complaint when she requested this on 8 June 2024. The landlord’s record keeping was insufficient, and the resident’s initial damp and mould complaint was not recorded. The landlord failed to consider any reasonable adjustments or the resident’s vulnerabilities under the Equality Act 2010 in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration for which orders have been made.
After carefully considering our remedies guidance, as above, an appropriate level of compensation is £250. This recognises the increased detriment caused to the resident by failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It also recognises the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident in trying to access the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property, including repairs to improve ventilation in the property and to address damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate allocations under the local authority’s housing allocations policy is outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident from a senior leader in respect of the failings identified during this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident directly £1,550 in compensation, comprising:
1. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property, including repairs to improve ventilation in the property and to address damp and mould.
2. £700 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed.
4. £250 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete an inspection of the property using appropriate specialist equipment to check for damp and mould. It should provide confirmation of its finding to the resident and to us, along with any identified works and anticipated completion dates.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide an update to the resident on the installation of CCTV and any expected date of installation. It should provide a copy of this update to us.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of this case, identifying learning to improve its practices, considering its approach to residents with vulnerabilities and considering its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in its service provision. It should send us a copy of this review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its antisocial behaviour policy to ensure that there is clarity over how and why a case should be closed.
It is recommended that the landlord review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon the recommendations contained within our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
It is recommended that the landlord review the learning from our Learning from Severe Maladministration report (July 2025) available on our website to improve its antisocial behaviour case management.