Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202521847)

Decision
Case ID	202521847
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in an end-of-terrace house with her children. Her complaint relates to a long-term dispute with her next-door neighbour. She has various concerns about the neighbour’s activities. She says their behaviour is intimidating. She previously brought a similar complaint to the Ombudsman (our reference 202506229). We identified some ASB case handling failures during our previous investigation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to her related concerns about discrimination, unfair treatment, and a lack of support.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to her related concerns about discrimination, unfair treatment, and a lack of support.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports and concerns about ASB

The landlord was responsible for several delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not acknowledge these or attempt to put things right for her.

Related concerns about discrimination, unfair treatment, and a lack of support

The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s concerns about discrimination and unfair treatment. When it did engage with her various welfare related concerns, it did not address these thoroughly. Its inadequate approach added to the resident’s distress.

Complaint handling

The landlord overlooked a short delay during its internal complaints process. This had a limited impact on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £350 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports and concerns about ASB. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her related concerns around discrimination, unfair treatment, and a lack of support. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	ASB case review order The landlord must appoint one of its senior ASB managers to review its handling of the resident’s relevant ASB case. This is to ensure that the landlord has taken proportionate action in relation to any evidenced incidents. The landlord must share a summary of its findings with the resident and us.	No later than 30 January 2026
4	Multi-agency meeting order The landlord must arrange a multi-agency meeting to discuss the resident’s case. The meeting must include the resident, the police, and the local council. It must explain the landlord’s current approach to the neighbour dispute and how it will coordinate with the other attending agencies. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a summary of the meeting.	No later than 13 February 2026
5	Vulnerabilities order The landlord must ensure that its key systems accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before it updates these, it may need to contact her to gather the correct details. It must also signpost her to any relevant support agencies. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She referenced a recent interaction with the neighbour. She cited numerous sections from the landlord’s ASB policy. She felt the neighbour had breached these terms. She mentioned discrimination. The resident’s other key points were: The landlord favoured her neighbour in the dispute. It had not safeguarded the resident or her family. The ASB had involved threats to the resident’s life.
Around 26 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referred to a good neighbour agreement that it had previously implemented. It said it had managed the resident’s ASB case in line with its policies. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: It was unable to investigate historical issues. It had an active tenancy breach case for the neighbour. Some of the neighbour’s problem behaviours had stopped. The police were leading in relation to alleged criminal incidents. It would continue to meet the resident every week to support her.
10 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said unresolved ASB issues had a daily impact on her family. She felt the police had taken little action. She also cited a lack of meaningful action from the landlord. She said it should take her concerns seriously. Her other key points were: The landlord should explain what it had done to support her family. It should also explain what action it had taken against the neighbour. It should explain how it was coordinating with the police. It should provide an action plan detailing its next steps.
19 August 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It mentioned several incidents that the resident had recently reported. It confirmed it had gathered some evidence of ASB. It did not identify any failures or uphold the resident’s complaint. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: The neighbour had disputed some of the resident’s allegations. The resident should supply evidence to support these. For data protection reasons, it could not disclose some of its actions. It would create an acceptable behaviour contract for the neighbour. The neighbour was not obliged to sign this contract. It would continue to work with the resident and the neighbour.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In August 2025 the resident told us that the ASB was ongoing. She said the landlord should adhere to its policy terms and keep her updated. In December 2025, she said it should take legal steps against the neighbour and install additional security measures at the property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to reports and concerns about ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s ASB records indicate that the resident began to report new incidents around 8 April 2025. Related notes show she had told the landlord that she had video footage of an object being thrown into her garden. Given the nature of the reported incident, it is reasonable to conclude that it was distressing for the resident.
The landlord’s nextrecord is from 15 May 2025. Itvisited the resident at this point. It agreed to hold weekly face-to-face meetings with her going forwards. Its relevant ASB policy says the landlord will tailor its approach to support the reporting resident. By arranging frequent meetings, it showed a sensitive approach in line with its policy.
The landlord’s meeting notes also show the following events had occurred by this point:
1. The landlord had spoken to the neighbour about the object.
2. It had added various issues to an ongoing tenancy breach case about the neighbour
3. It had liaised with the police about the resident’s recent reports.
4. The police had advised these reports did not meet their required threshold to act.
From the landlord’s ASB records, we were unable to establish if it completed weekly meetings with the resident subsequently. This lack of clarity points to inadequate record keeping by the landlord. It should be able to show that it fulfilled its commitment to the resident.
The resident’s complaint was prompted by an interaction on 3 June 2025. She says this involved threats and intimidation from the neighbour. She also says that some of these behaviours were directed towards the landlord’s surveyor. The landlord says its surveyor did not report any similar concerns. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary.
From the information seen, it is not clear if the resident made a corresponding ASB report to the landlord. However, records show the landlord met the resident again on 9 June 2025. This was 1 working day after she had complained. Ultimately, it responded swiftly to her complaint. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
The landlord completed a new risk assessment for the resident during the meeting. Its ASB policy shows that risk assessments form a key part of its approach. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to reassess the risk to the resident at this point.
The landlord’s corresponding notes show the parties discussed the neighbour’s vehicles during the meeting. The landlord confirmed it would give the neighbour an opportunity to remove unroadworthy vehicles. It also said it would follow a legal process if the neighbour declined to remove these. Ultimately, it set a clear expectation for the resident.
During her complaint to the landlord, the resident referenced a lack of meaningful action on its part. She also mentioned communication problems and a lack of coordination with the police. We have seen evidence that supports some of these concerns. This includes an email exchange between the resident and a police officer on 23 June 2025.
The above referenced parties included the landlord in the email exchange. The police officer said the police were not leading the response to the reported ASB. In summary, they also said that the police and local council wanted the landlord to take action. This information was broadly consistent with the landlord’s meeting notes from 15 May 2025.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response several days after the above referenced email exchange. It said the police were leading its response in relation to items thrown in the resident’s garden. This information was not correct. The landlord’s ASB policy says that multi-agency working is “vital for a successful response to ASB”. In this case, the landlord overlooked important information from the police. This was contrary to its ASB policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response shows it subsequently took additional steps to address the objects that were thrown. In summary, it said the landlord had investigated the matter and arranged for the neighbour to collect the items. Based on the period between 15 May 2025 and 19 August 2025, there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had given the neighbour permission to keep the disputed vehicles at their home. It also said it was sorry if it had given the resident the impression that it would not grant permission. Ultimately, the landlord did not recognise that it had set her expectations and then failed to meet these. This was inadequate.
The response points to another issue with the landlord’s ASB case handling. It shows the neighbour had corroborated one of the resident’s more recent ASB reports. Specifically, it said they had admitted to driving aggressively near a child that was visiting the resident’s home. Given what happened, it is likely this incident was distressing for the resident.
The landlord said it had added the driving incident to its ongoing breach of tenancy case. It also said it was planning to create an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) for the neighbour. We note that ABCs are a voluntary arrangement. In other words, the neighbour was not obliged to accept one. The landlord’s relevant ASB policy says it will:
1. Take a robust approach to tackling ASB.
2. Take swift and effective action against perpetrators.
3. Consider the most appropriate tools given the available evidence.
In this case, the landlord has not supplied any evidence to show that it considered more robust measures in line with its policy. Since the neighbour had admitted the allegation, it could have reasonably issued them a formal warning as well as exploring an ABC. There is no indication the landlord did this. It may have missed a key opportunity to influence the neighbour’s behaviour. From the information seen, its approach was inadequate.
In mid-December 2025, the resident told us she did not know whether or not the landlord had issued an ABC to the neighbour. This was around 4 months after the landlord had mentioned an ABC in its stage 2 response. The resident’s comments point to a lack of communication from the landlord. It is likely that the ABC was important to the resident.
In summary, the landlord was responsible for several delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not acknowledge these or attempt to put things right for her. The resident felt it had not taken her concerns seriously. Her comments show the landlord’s unreasonable handling added to her overall distress.
Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Discrimination, unfair treatment, and a lack of support
Finding	Maladministration

Records suggest the parties had a meeting on 10 October 2024. Meeting notes show the resident referenced discrimination and inconsistent treatment. From the information seen, it is unclear why she felt that she had experienced discrimination (presumably from the landlord). There is no indication the landlord responded to her concerns at this point.
In a subsequent complaint to the landlord (from February 2025), the resident said that (she felt) it would have evicted her if she had behaved in the same way as the neighbour. Her comments suggest that she was distressed by the landlord’s approach. The landlord did not address her concerns in its related responses. This was inadequate.
The resident’s complaint on 6 June 2025 referenced discrimination, favourable treatment for the neighbour, and a lack of safeguarding. The landlord did address the resident’s concerns subsequently. However, based on the period between 10 October 2024 and 6 June 2025, there was a delay of about 8 months. This was unreasonable.
In each of its responses, the landlord repeated the resident’s comments about discrimination and unfair treatment. However, it did not attempt to unpack her concerns or respond to these directly. Its complaints policy says the landlord will challenge all forms of discrimination. It also says the landlord will fully investigate complaints about discrimination. In this case, the landlord has not shown that it adhered to its policy.
We checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s related concerns. There is no evidence to show that the landlord favoured either party in the dispute. Similarly, there is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord overlooked any protected characteristics or related legal duties.
However, the resident had persistent concerns about unfair treatment. She raised these several times. The landlord did not make a reasonable effort to explore these through its complaints process. We find it showed a superficial and arguably dismissive approach. This may have added to the resident’s view that she was being treated unfairly.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about support/safeguarding in more detail. It said it had implemented a good neighbour agreement to support her. It also referenced its decision to implement a weekly contact arrangement. There is evidence that it overlooked support related ASB handling failures during its complaints process.
For example, in mid-May 2025 the resident told us she was taking anxiety medication due to the ASB. On 9 June 2025 the landlord completed a risk assessment and deemed her to be facing a high risk. Its ASB policy says it will identify any support needs and signpost to external support services where appropriate. This is a positive approach.
In this case, there is no indication that the landlord attempted to signpost the resident to external support services following its risk assessment. In November 2025 the landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in its systems. In a subsequent call with us, the resident questioned the purpose of its risk assessments.
The above points to inadequate handling by the landlord. From the information seen, it missed opportunities to:
1. Identify the resident’s vulnerability.
2. Record the related information.
3. Signpost her to relevant support agencies.
4. Support the resident and potentially improve her situation.
In summary, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s concerns about discrimination and unfair treatment. When it did engage with her various welfare related concerns, it did not address these thoroughly. We note that the above identified failures are consistent with some of the resident’s concerns about a lack of support.
Ultimately, there is evidence that the landlord’s inadequate approach added to the resident’s distress. The landlord has not acknowledged any failures or attempted to put things right for her. As a result, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective May 2025) refers to the Code.
The landlord’s policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it will issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. It will respond within 20 working days of an acknowledgement at stage 2. These timescales align with the Code.
In this case, the landlord took 14 working days to issue a stage 1 response. This timeframe was consistent with its policy and the Code. Subsequently, the landlord took 28 working days to respond at stage 2. This exceeded the maximum timescale (25 working days) under its policy and the Code. This was inappropriate complaint handling.
The landlord considered the resident’s complaint journey in its stage 2 response. However, the evidence suggests that it misinterpreted the date of her escalation request. The correct date was 10 July 2025. Ultimately, the landlord did not identify the short delay (3 working days) or attempt to redress the resident. This was inadequate.
However, there is no indication that the above identified delay had a significant adverse impact on the resident. For example, we have not seen any evidence to show that she was prompted to chase the landlord for its stage 2 response.
In summary, the landlord overlooked a short delay during its internal complaints process. Given the limited duration and impact of the delay, we find that there was service failure by the landlord. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident. This is a proportionate finding and remedy in the circumstances

Learning

General learning

There were problems with the landlord’s ASB handling. It could remind its ASB handlers that it can influence long-term neighbour disputes with effective case handling.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were gaps in the landlord’s ASB records and some of these were unclear. The landlord could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

Aspects of the landlord’s communication were inadequate or inconsistent.Ultimately, it was unable to assure the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously. It could remind its staff about the importance of accurate communications and timely updates.