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.

Aster Group Limited (202424253)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424253

Aster Group Limited

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom bungalow, since March 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was growing cannabis and welding metal outside.
  3. The landlord visited both the resident and neighbour multiple times. It checked the neighbour’s property for tenancy breaches and liaised with the police and environmental health (EH). The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident about the reported issues. It concluded that, while there was clearly a neighbour dispute, there was no evidence of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  4. The resident complained on 20 May 2024 that the landlord failed her by placing her in a property with the issues next door. She said the landlord knew the neighbour grew cannabis and was a welder and it put her in harm’s way.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 June 2024 it explained the actions it had taken and concluded there were no failures in service. It acknowledged the impact the situation was having on the resident’s health and welfare. It outlined possible solutions such as mediation, mutual exchange and a housing application with the council.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 July 2024. The landlord responded by phone on 4 September 2024, and in writing on 11 September 2024. It explained how it had responded to the resident’s concerns and said its actions were in line with policy.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 24 September 2024. She said the landlord had failed in its response to her concerns.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s first reports on 4 August 2023 by:
    1. Speaking to her by phone and confirming the details of her concerns.
    2. Ensuring she had reported the cannabis matter to the police and asking for the log number.
    3. Providing a direct contact number for the ASB team.
    4. Advising her of its next steps, such as visiting the neighbour.
  2. This was an appropriate response which showed the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It followed up the telephone call with an email, which was helpful to provide a record of its communication and promote the resident’s understanding.
  3. The landlord liaised with police regarding the alleged cannabis cultivation. The communication between the landlord and police showed the landlord was prepared to take action against the neighbour if necessary. The police confirmed there was no evidence of cannabis in the neighbour’s property, which had been thoroughly searched.
  4. The landlord visited the neighbour on 24 August 2023 and checked the property. It found no evidence of any tenancy breaches. This was appropriate action.
  5. In September 2023 the resident made further reports about the neighbour. These included him welding outside and near to a hedge, and him having a friend/carer staying at his property. The landlord replied promptly on each occasion, signposting the resident as necessary and offering advice. It visited both parties on 13 September 2023 and discussed the issues. This was fair and showed the landlord obtained both accounts, as there were concerns on both sides. It tried to resolve the issues between the parties by ensuring each side felt listened to and offered advice about how to avoid conflict.
  6. The landlord complied with its ASB policy by raising a case and assigning an ASB officer. This officer checked in with the resident every 2 weeks to provide updates and check on the situation. This was appropriate and helpful and demonstrated that the landlord remained aware of the situation.
  7. According to its ASB policy the landlord should take a multi-agency approach where applicable. It did so through regular liaison with the police and EH. The landlord had correctly identified that the neighbour’s welding was not an ASB issue nor a breach of tenancy. The resident had therefore reported the issue to EH and they advised the landlord there were no breaches identified by them. They had asked the resident to complete diary sheets regarding noise nuisance but had not received them back.
  8. In the landlord’s check in phone calls with the resident on 1 and 14 November 2023 and 4 December 2023, she said the situation had improved. She said there was ongoing cannabis use but things had calmed down and the welding had stopped. The landlord explained on 4 December 2023 that it would close the ASB case as no further issues had been reported for several weeks. This was a reasonable decision that was clearly communicated to the resident. The landlord had addressed all concerns through regular discussions, home visits and liaison with other agencies. It ensured the resident knew how to make any further reports so she still felt supported.
  9. On 1 February 2024 the resident made reports about her neighbour using cannabis and alleged her car had been damaged. The landlord responded the same day and opened another ASB case. It gave the resident direct contact details for the ASB officer assigned. This was prompt and appropriate action. The landlord advised the resident the alleged car damage was a police matter and it would be guided by them. This was appropriate. The police concluded there was no evidence to link the neighbour to it.
  10. The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident throughout February and March 2023. It checked in with her at least fortnightly, in accordance with its policy. The landlord had to manage the delicate situation of also responding to the neighbour’s concerns. Evidence shows it did this fairly and diplomatically. The landlord suggested mediation, which neither party agreed to.
  11. There was liaison between the landlord and EH, which sent standard noise nuisance letters to both parties. They identified no breaches regarding welding. The communication between the landlord and EH showed the landlord trying to find a way forward and offering assistance where it could.
  12. As well as regular phone calls and emails, the landlord visited the resident on 16 April 2024. It checked the garden and the area where the neighbour welds. It found the area was a considerable distance from the resident so she should not be affected by any welding fumes. The landlord correctly explained to the resident that welding was not considered to be ASB. During the visit the landlord appropriately dealt with some difficult and threatening behaviour from the resident. Despite these challenges the landlord continued to support her and reasonably address her concerns.
  13. The resident reported her neighbour to the fire service as she believed there was a fire risk of him welding near a hedge. The fire service visited on 23 April 2024 and said they could only give advice about fire safety. It could not take any action against the neighbour. Previous landlord checks had identified the hedge was not at risk from welding sparks. The landlord spoke to the resident the same day and visited on 26 April 2024. This showed it kept her updated and remained in contact, despite there being no evidence of ASB. The landlord’s communication remained sensitive and responsive to the resident’s needs and concerns.
  14. On 9 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update. It confirmed it had extensively checked the neighbour’s property and there was no evidence of cannabis cultivation. It explained its liaison with EH about welding and said there was no ASB for it to pursue. It offered the resident a conflict resolution package, where she did not need to have any contact with her neighbour. This would involve drawing up a good neighbour agreement. The neighbour agreed but the resident refused. There was back and forth communication where the landlord offered reassurance and explained the benefits to the resident. The landlord demonstrated patience and understanding to the resident in its communication.
  15. In an ASB case review on 10 May 2024 the landlord recorded there was nothing more that could be done to resolve issues. It said the resident refused to engage in constructive dialogue and would not work to resolve anything. The evidence supports this viewpoint. The landlord described the situation as an entrenched neighbour dispute where the resident constantly targets her neighbour and uses other organisations to do so. The resident had also been abusive and aggressive to landlord staff. This was an accurate description of events based on the evidence.
  16. On 11 May 2024 the landlord became aware the resident had cut down the neighbour’s hedge. This would potentially be treated as criminal damage with the neighbour as the victim. The landlord’s ASB team and neighbourhood team liaised to find the best way forward in a difficult situation. The landlord proposed installing a fence in place of the hedge, to maintain the boundary and offer privacy and separation between the parties. This was a proactive and appropriate response to the situation to avoid further conflict.
  17. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2024, saying the landlord had failed her by placing her in a home where the neighbour smokes cannabis and welds outside. She claimed the landlord knew about problems with the neighbour and placed her in harms way. She was not happy with the landlord’s response to her reports.
  18. The landlord phoned the resident on 22 May 2024 to discuss the complaint and visited her on 29 May 2024. This showed the landlord took the complaint seriously and provided the resident with opportunity to discuss it further. She said she has health issues which have been made worse by the neighbour. She believed the police had found cannabis in the neighbour’s house but the landlord did nothing. This was not the case. She said the neighbour has used discriminatory language against her and he scares her. The landlord offered to enhance security by installing a Ring camera doorbell. This was positive to ensure the resident felt safe and listened to.
  19. On 29 May 2024 the police emailed the resident and asked her to stop her behaviour towards her neighbour. The police said the resident knew her decision to remove the neighbour’s hedge would aggravate the situation. While the landlord had agreed for the resident to ‘trim’ the hedge, the police believed the resident had deliberately removed it to annoy her neighbour. The police said “the fact you can now see your neighbour clearly and anything he does which you don’t like you are reporting to us and (the landlord) is, quite frankly, ridiculous.” The police confirmed to the resident that no cannabis had been found in her neighbour’s property. This communication supported the landlord’s position.
  20. On 31 May 2024 landlord case notes showed it had continued to liaise with the police and monitor the situation. No further action had been taken regarding cannabis use and a criminal damage offence had been logged against the resident regarding the hedge. The resident emailed the resident’s GP to access further support for her. The local council also accepted the resident’s application for housing via its register. This showed the landlord was committed to supporting the resident under ongoing difficult circumstances.
  21. The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 June 2024 and explained the stage 1 response before issuing it in writing on 4 June 2023. This was appropriate to ensure her understanding. The response was thorough and covered all the resident’s concerns:
    1. At the time the property was let to the resident there were no issues or concerns to impact her. She was happy with the property and all checks concluded the property was suitable.
    2. The police confirmed no illegal substances were found in the neighbour’s property. EH confirmed there were no breaches associated with the neighbour welding. The landlord found no tenancy breaches.
    3. The hedge was in the neighbour’s property. The resident was given verbal consent to trim any branches overhanging her boundary but not to remove it completely. The landlord investigated her report of the hedge being a fire risk. It was found not to be after consultation with the fire safety team.
    4. The neighbour’s alleged conduct towards the resident, including discriminatory language, was reported to the police. The police took no further action and said they consider it to be a neighbour dispute. The landlord asked the police whether they deemed the neighbour to pose a risk to the resident, and they said no.
  22. The landlord did not agree it had failed and the resident’s complaint was not upheld. This was the correct decision. The landlord has evidenced its efforts to support the resident and act upon all concerns raised. The landlord acknowledged the effect the situation was having on the resident’s health and welfare. It offered possible solutions such as mutual exchange or housing through the local council. The landlord again encouraged mediation and a good neighbour agreement.
  23. On 5 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident it was closing the second ASB case. This was reasonable. It explained the case had been fully investigated and there was no breach of tenancy. No further issues had been reported. A new fence had been built between the properties in an attempt to reduce conflict.
  24. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 July 2024 through a representative at a support organisation. The landlord liaised appropriately with the representative and spoke to the resident numerous times about her ongoing concerns. This was a positive response.
  25. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 August and 4 September 2024 to explain its stage 2 response before issuing it in writing. This again promoted understanding and clear communication. The landlord provided a comprehensive stage 2 response, explaining how it had actioned each of the resident’s concerns:
    1. The resident said the landlord should have informed her about the neighbour’s welding and cannabis use before she moved in. The landlord again explained there were no records or reports of this to make it aware of any potential issues.
    2. The resident said the landlord let her the property without taking her health and wellbeing into account. The landlord had records that the resident was happy when viewing the property and health conditions were taken into account.
    3. The resident said repairs needed to be done in the property before she moved in but never were. This had not been raised previously. The landlord’s records showed there were no outstanding repairs and anything reported had been addressed within required timescales.
    4. The resident believes the neighbour should be moved or sanctioned. She said the landlord had refused to help her with the trouble she had had. The landlord detailed all of its actions regarding her reports, including visits and liaison with other agencies. It said its enforcement action must be proportionate and evidence based.
    5. The resident was not happy that EH had suggested she keep her windows shut when the neighbour is welding. The landlord correctly said this was not its advice so it could not comment. The landlord cannot stop the neighbour welding on his property.
    6. The resident believed the hedge needed to be cut down as it was a fire hazard. The landlord accepted it may have been a misunderstanding when she believed she could cut it down as opposed to just trim it. However it was on the neighbour’s property and not her responsibility or concern.
    7. The resident received a letter from someone claiming to be a mediator and believed it to be malicious. The landlord confirmed it did not commission this and did not recognise the name. The landlord offered to speak to the neighbour about it if the resident wished.
  26. The landlord’s response was detailed and helpful. It noted the resident wants to move but not as a mutual exchange. This is because the resident does not want another person to have the same experience. The landlord said mutual exchange was an option and it would ensure any prospective tenant was made aware of the history. It explained the resident could also continue to apply for housing with the local council. This showed the landlord was still committed to helping her find a solution.
  27. The landlord has acted reasonably and fairly throughout all of its contact with the resident. It has responded to her reports and concerns promptly and appropriately. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with her neighbour.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with her neighbour.