Believe Housing Limited (202414128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414128

Believe Housing Limited

9 September 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
   1.        The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2.        The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy began in January 2015.
3. The resident lives at the property with her teenage son.
4. On 23 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB from an individual in the neighbouring property. She said the ASB had started within weeks of him moving into the property in late 2020. This involved strong smells of cannabis from his property and drug dealers who visited and “revved” their cars, loud music, verbal threats, and inappropriate comments made to her and her teenage son. She said the police had been called out on multiple occasions.
5. The situation culminated with incidents on 20 and 30 May 2024 involving the neighbour making threats of physical violence against the resident and her son (including death threats). The neighbour was arrested for harassment on 30 May 2024. And released on bail the next day with the condition not to communicate indirectly or directly with the resident. The bail conditions also required the neighbour not to throw objects at the resident’s property or enter the boundaries.
6. The landlord applied to the courts for an injunction order against the neighbour which was ordered on 16 August 2024. The order stated the neighbour must not intimidate, assault, or threaten the resident or any other resident in the vicinity.
7. Following intervention from us, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2024. This stated it had acted in line with its ASB policy as it had:
   1.        Completed multiple risk assessments.
   2.        Offered mediation and completed all actions agreed at the independent case review on 10 June 2024.
   3.         Agreed and kept to action plans made with the resident.
   4.        Awarded a higher priority banding to facilitate her being re-housed more quickly and offered her 2 properties which she turned down.
   5.        It apologised it had not actioned the resident’s 23 June 2023 complaint and offered her £50 in compensation.
8. On 2 December 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she felt the landlord’s response was too focused on its policies and had not dealt with the issues. The resident asked for her neighbour to be evicted, or for it to pay the costs of her moving to a suitable alternative property.
9. On 7 January 2025, the landlord provided its final complaint response. This stated that it had used several tools and powers to try to address the ASB. This included both verbal and written warnings to the perpetrator, a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) issued and most recently it applied for an injunction. It said it had also worked closely with third parties to try and address the issues. However her neighbour’s tenancy had now ended, and he was no longer residing at the property.
10. On 17 February 2025, the resident told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her ASB complaints. She said it did not act to evict the neighbour despite death threats and threats of property damage. She said its complaint responses were dismissive and its offer of £50 in compensation did not cover the cost of moving, lost wages or emotional distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. In her complaint to the landlord the resident said the ASB by the individual in question had started soon after he had moved into the property in late 2020.
12. Although the landlord confirms reports since as early as April 2021, the focus of our investigation will be from March 2023 when the landlord opened a new ASB case. This is within 3 months of the resident’s original formal complaint dated 23 June 2023, and within 19 months of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. This is a reasonable point to start our investigation, particularly as most records provided are dated March 2023 onwards.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

13. The tenancy agreement states that residents, visitors, and pets must not do anything that causes a nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance to anyone living, visiting or working in the local area. This includes loud music, intimidating or threatening behaviour, abusive language, shouting and taking drugs.
14. This is echoed in the landlord’s ASB policy which also states the landlord is committed to using the tools and powers available to take swift and appropriate action against those who commit ASB. This also states:
    1.        It will deal with incidents promptly and within its timescales.
    2.        It will take a reasonable and proportionate stance to reports, considering the individual circumstances of each case.
    3.         The majority of ASB reports will not require legal action and will be resolved through early intervention however legal action may be necessary in the most serious cases.
    4.        It will share appropriate information with agencies where it had safeguarding concerns, or where someone may be at risk.
15. The timeframe of our investigation is from March 2023 until the landlord’s final response date 7 January 2025. During this period of some 20 months, the ASB reported by the resident ranged from noise and drug-taking linked to the address, to threats of physical violence, death threats and threats of criminal damage. And on at least one occasion the resident reported she had heard a racial slur against her son. The resident also made 183 noise reports through the noise app during this period.
16. Therefore, the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour (hereinafter referred to as the perpetrator) were extremely serious and posed a risk to the resident’s safety. The ASB/criminal behaviour did not just affect the resident but other residents in the vicinity who also made similar complaints to the landlord. The landlord therefore had a duty to use the tools and powers available to it to effectively tackle the ASB in accordance with its policy to eradicate this or at least reduce the impact on the resident as well as the wider community.
17. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses the landlord said it said it had followed the correct process and acted in accordance with its ASB policy by:
    1.        conducting risk assessments and action plans
    2.        offering mediation
    3.         keeping in regular contact
    4.        attending the independent case review requested by the resident and completing all actions assigned to it
    5.        taking legal action in the form of applying to the court for an injunction
    6.           reassessing the resident’s housing banding to assist her to move.
18. Having reviewed the evidence, this demonstrates that the landlord took the measures it said that it had taken in its responses.
19. The landlord opened an ASB case on 31 March 2023 following the resident’s 29 March 2023 report of “ongoing” loud music (including during unreasonable hours) and cannabis use. The landlord carried out a risk assessment and completed an action plan at this time. It also contacted the perpetrator to put the allegations to him. It then followed this up with a warning letter sent on 5 April 2023 reminding the perpetrator of the terms of the tenancy. This action taken was in accordance with its ASB policy. It also contacted the police asking for information about incidents reported involving the perpetrator. This was reasonable.
20. Over the next few months, the landlord was in regular communication with the resident, contacting her each week to review the ASB experienced. This was in line with its action plan agreed with the resident. The landlord also remained in communication with the perpetrator and the police.
21. It is clear from the landlord’s records that the perpetrator had vulnerabilities. Therefore, it is recognised that the landlord had to balance its duty to ensure the resident felt safe and secure in her home with its duty to help the perpetrator sustain his tenancy which was at risk by his ASB.
22. The landlord acted appropriately by working with support services to ensure the perpetrator was receiving appropriate support. However, because of continued reports received about his loud music, drug use, as well as threats of criminal damage, it sent the perpetrator a further tenancy warning letter on 24 August 2023. At this stage, the landlord was also receiving complaints from other residents in the vicinity. The landlord sent a pre-NOSP on 14 September 2023 citing loud music, strong smells of cannabis, shouting, and foul language from his property. Following this, it served a NOSP on 15 November 2023 due to further reports of him causing nuisance, annoyance, and disturbance to the residents. These interventions were appropriate in the circumstances.
23. However, there is little evidence of it either explaining to the resident if it intended to follow up its NOSP with legal action, or of it updating the action plan agreed. The resident had been clear about wanting the perpetrator evicted from the property as such it was reasonable at this stage to expect it to manage the resident’s expectations around this, in accordance with its ASB policy. Its failure to do so was unhelpful.
24. The resident’s ASB reports continued into early 2024 although we note these were mainly noise related. However, on 12 February 2024, the resident reported feeling suicidal mainly due to the situation with the perpetrator. She explained that she could not work from home because of ongoing noise. She asked why the landlord had not started possession proceedings against the perpetrator.
25. The landlord said that it was still monitoring the situation but that it would investigate her ongoing concerns. Again, its failure to effectively manage the resident’s expectations around any eviction action or update her action plan at this time, was unreasonable. The landlord should have also completed a further risk assessment at this time to help it understand if it needed to change its approach based on a potential different score and priority level allocated. These issues amount to a failing.
26. The landlord however did open a safeguarding case and contacted the resident’s GP as well as police due to concerns about her safety. Its actions here to ensure the resident was receiving relevant support were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy.
27. During the same month, the landlord awarded the resident a higher priority on her housing application (band 2 which it back dated to October 2023). The resident’s request had stemmed from the situation with the perpetrator and the higher priority awarded by the landlord was to facilitate her being rehoused more quickly, should she wish to. This is evidence of the landlord acting in accordance with its ASB policy which places importance on ensuring it delivers a customer-focused service.
28. Due to ongoing ASB, the resident told the landlord in April 2024 that she had requested a multi-agency review of how her ASB reports had been handled. This would be led by the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) office. However, before the review took place on 10 June 2024, the resident reported more serious incidents. This represented an escalation of the perpetrator’s behaviour. The initial incident concerned a disturbance during the weekend of 4 and 5 May 2024 involving loud music and visitors at the perpetrator’s property until the early hours of the morning.
29. In response, the landlord sent the perpetrator a tenancy warning letter on 10 May 2024 stating he was currently ‘on notice’ and should not be breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement. This action was reasonable. However, the next 2 incidents she reported on 20 and 30 May 2024, concerned threatening and intimidatory behaviour from the perpetrator (including a death threat). On 31 May 2023, the resident told the landlord the perpetrator had been arrested but realised on bail that day and that he had already “paid kids” to throw mud/eggs at her house. The landlord was in contact with the police who confirmed the bail conditions set against the perpetrator which included him not communicating with the resident, not to throw objects at her property or car or enter the boundaries.
30. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 10 June 2024 which, at a score of 23 confirmed a higher risk and priority. The landlord attended the multi- agency review led by the PCC on the same date. The review put in place measures to support and protect the resident. Actions agreed by the landlord included providing a fire bag for her letter box, safety film on her windows, and joint working with the police, and the local council warden service regarding carrying out patrols in her area. The landlord also agreed to 2-weekly contact with the resident, follow up support, and said it would confirm how it would proceed following its NOSP.
31. The landlord completed all these actions and took steps to apply for an injunction against the perpetrator (as opposed to eviction action). This was granted by the court on 16 August 2024 and prohibited the perpetrator from intimidating, assaulting, or threatening the resident or any neighbour in the vicinity. The landlord was also working closely with the perpetrator’s support worker and other agencies supporting him during this timeframe. The landlord’s actions, including legal action, the purpose of which was to keep the resident and her family’s safety, were appropriate.
32. However, within a few weeks the resident reported further incidents of strong cannabis smells and shouting and arguing from the perpetrator’s property. The landlord told the resident it was not in the process of seeking possession of his property at that time. It said it had secured the injunction to protect her and her son from any further harassment. Furthermore, that unless it proved the injunction had been breached, there were no grounds for possession.
33. The landlord’s response however should have set out what evidence it needed to apply for committal for breach of the injunction or act on the NOSP in place. Its failure to explain next steps to the resident after she reported breaches of the injunction, was unreasonable.
34. Around the same time, the landlord told her it could not assist her with the costs of her moving home. The resident had been offered at least 1 housing transfer by this stage, but she explained to the landlord she could not afford the cost of moving. Although we recognise this was disappointing for the resident, any help with funding a move was discretionary on the part of the landlord. However, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to sign post the resident to agencies who might support her with moving costs.
35. By the date of the landlord’s final response, issued 3 to 4 months later, the perpetrator had moved out of the neighbouring property. This therefore resolved the anti-social and criminal behaviour the resident and her family had been experiencing. The resident told us the landlord had not evicted the perpetrator but that he had left the property of his own accord. While the evidence confirms this, it also shows that the landlord took steps and worked with other agencies to facilitate the re-housing of the perpetrator elsewhere.
36. In summary, there was ongoing multi-agency working and regular interventions by the landlord in its attempt to tackle the ASB reported. This included tenancy warning letters, a NOSP and subsequently an injunction against the perpetrator after the situation worsened. However, it should have done more to manage the resident’s expectations earlier about its intentions around eviction action against the perpetrator. Then when the resident reported breaches of the injunction order, the landlord was not proactive in telling her what evidence it needed to apply for committal for breach of the injunction. It also did not explain why it was not pursuing possession on the NOSP in place. This lack of action meant the situation went on for another 3 to 4 months until the perpetrator was moved. Furthermore, the lack of any new action plan or risk assessment in February 2024 when it had concerns about the resident safety, was unreasonable.
37. It is recognised that the impact of antisocial and criminal behaviour on the resident and her family, was immense. Being the target of such behaviour was extremely distressing for them, particularly as the situation went on for an extended period.
38. The landlord has demonstrated that, in the main, its response to the resident’s reports was in line with its policy, and that its actions reasonable and proportionate. Nonetheless, we have identified several failings that the landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint responses. Neither did it take any steps to put this right in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to:
    1.        be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2.        put things right
    3.         learn from outcomes
39. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord. In the circumstances, an order has been included below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by failings while handling her ASB reports. This is consistent with this service’s guidance on remedies where there are failings which adversely affected the resident that the landlord has not acknowledged or attempted to put right.

Complaint handling

40. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a full written response within 10 working days from when it sent the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will provide a final response within 20 working days.
41. In its complaints policy, the landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of its service, actions, or lack of action by its staff or those acting on its behalf.
42. The resident raised a formal complaint regarding its handling of ASB on 23 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint email but did not log a formal complaint or provide a complaint response at this time. The landlord’s failure to log this as a stage 1 complaint was unreasonable and delayed the resident’s access to its complaint’s procedure and ultimately a resolution.
43. After contact from this service on 10 November 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2024. This was 359 working days after her original complaint. Furthermore, having reviewed the ASB case notes, it is clear there were at least 2 further occasions when she expressed dissatisfaction regarding its response to her ASB reports. This included on 8 September 2023 and on 17 July 2024 when the resident said the landlord was not doing enough in response to her ASB reports or to help her.
44. As we consider these instances met the definition of a complaint, the landlord’s failure to log these as stage 1 complaints was also unreasonable. This is further evidence of it failing to follow its complaints policy.
45. In its stage 1 complaint response it acknowledged and apologised for its failure to action her 23 June 2023 complaint. It offered the resident £50 in compensation. While its offer was in accordance with our dispute resolution principles of: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, the redress was insufficient to resolve the failings identified. This amounts to (low end) maladministration.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s related complaint.

Orders

48. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1.        Provides a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2.        Pays the resident additional compensation of £500 (£550 including the amount offered during its complaint process). The additional compensation is made up of:
       1. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
       2. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by failings in its handling of the related complaint.
    3.         Provide us with a timescale for staff training in relation to:
       1. complaint handling including when to log a stage 1 complaint.
       2. updating risk assessments at critical points.
    4.        Provide us with evidence of its compliance with the above orders.