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.

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202416866)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416866

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

29 August 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a mid-terraced bungalow and has mental health vulnerabilities, which are known to the landlord.
  2. The resident and his neighbour reported several allegations and counter allegations of ASB against each other to the landlord from January 2021. The severity of the reports ranged from noise complaints to verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation. The landlord kept a log of the reports and attempted to arrange mediation between the parties. It also referred some matters to the police.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2023 and reported the neighbour had an overgrown garden and believed he had abandoned the property. The landlord said it would look into the matter. There then followed more allegations and counter allegations of ASB over several months.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the ASB issues on 16 April 2024. He said he had experienced 3 years of harassment and intimidation and, despite sending lots of evidence, the landlord had taken no action. He said he wanted the landlord to conduct a thorough investigation and wanted it to punish his neighbour.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It thanked the resident for allowing an extension to its complaint response and apologised for any inconvenience. It said it had closed a previous ASB case in December 2021 after referral to mediation and closed another case in July 2023 due to a sustained period of no further reports. It acknowledged it did not complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan to investigate matters when the resident made new ASB reports in August 2023. It confirmed that both the police and council would require more evidence before taking action against the neighbour. It proposed mediation.
  6. The resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 17 May 2024 and asked to escalate to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 June 2024. It thanked the resident for attending a stage 2 panel review meeting on 6 June 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response that it could only take action with further evidence. It confirmed it had been in contact with the neighbour to manage the garden. It said the complaint was upheld and apologised for not upholding the complaint at stage 1. It offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failure and £150 for service failures dealing with the ASB reports.
  8. The resident accepted the offer of £250 compensation on 13 June 2024. When he brought his complaint to us, he wanted the landlord to evict his neighbour. However, he has since confirmed the neighbour has left the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In this case, the resident said they had experienced ASB for over 3 years. However, the complaint brought to our Service was raised with the landlord in April 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from April 2023. We cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen.
  2. In the resident’s complaint, and in communication with us, he said this situation had had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident might have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, it will take all reports of ASB seriously and complete a risk assessment to understand the impact of the situation. It says it will contact residents to discuss matters within a maximum of 5 working days. It also says it will agree an action plan with details of the next steps to be taken by all parties and will keep residents informed of the status of the case.
  2. Following previous reports of ASB, the resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2023 and said his neighbour had been away from the property for a while and it was peaceful. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed it had previously given the neighbour a warning about their behaviour.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord again on 5 June 2023 and said his neighbour had been quiet and had been away from the property for the last few months. The landlord responded on 16 June 2023 and said as there had been no incidents reported in the last 2 months, it would close the ASB case as there was nothing further to investigate. This was a reasonable action to take.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2023 (the exact date is unclear) and reported his neighbour’s garden was very overgrown. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 1 August 2023, but they were not home. The landlord telephoned the resident the same day and said they were looking into the overgrown garden. He told them he believed the neighbour had abandoned the property months ago.
  5. The landlord therefore raised this issue as a matter of tenancy fraud for abandoning the property, rather than an ASB case, which was a reasonable action to take.
  6. There was no further contact until the resident emailed the landlord on 23 October 2023. He said he had just submitted a recording of his neighbour ranting and shouting and asked the landlord to take action. The landlord incorrectly added this information to the tenancy fraud case instead of opening a new ASB case, which was inappropriate. This meant the landlord did not follow its ASB policy protocols.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 November 2023 and said it could not find any recordings submitted through its noise app. It also said it hoped there had been no further incidents since he contacted it on 23 October 2023. This was not in line with its commitment to contact residents within a maximum of 5 working days.
  8. On 12 January 2024 the landlord recorded on its system it had received no contact from the resident about its noise app. It also recorded he had not contacted it since 23 October 2023 with any other reported problems.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2024 and again reported the overgrown garden and said the neighbour was not living there again. The landlord said it would look into the situation and taken any appropriate action required.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2024 about the same issues. It replied on 5 March 2024 and told him it was aware the neighbour was not at the property but could not disclose any details about the reason why he was not there. This was reasonable as the landlord could not give details about another resident’s circumstances under GDPR.
  11. The resident then emailed the landlord on 27 March, 2 April and 3 April 2024. He sent video evidence of his neighbour and partner filming his property and climbing over a wall onto his property. He said his neighbour was causing him stress and anxiety and wanted him evicted for a breach of tenancy.
  12. On 10 April 2024 the landlord received an email from the police referring ongoing neighbour dispute issues to it. The police said the resident had made frequent reports of harassment, but they did not consider the evidence received to be harassment.
  13. When the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response of 14 May 2024, it acknowledged it did not complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan to investigate matters when the resident made new ASB reports in August 2023. It said further coaching and training had since been provided. However, it did not consider if any compensation was reasonable to reflect any impact on the resident by that failing. That was not reasonable.
  14. On 28 May 2024 the landlord spoke with the neighbour who said they would try to find someone to help them cut the garden back. However, there is no evidence it discussed the reported ASB incidents of shouting in October 2023 or the neighbour climbing onto the resident’s property in April 2024.
  15. In its final complaint response of 11 June 2024 the landlord reiterated it needed more evidence before it could take action against the neighbour. However, it acknowledged its stage 1 complaint response should have considered compensation and it offered £150 for the service failing in dealing with ASB reports.
  16. In summary, the landlord did not open a new ASB case in October 2023, which meant it failed to follow its ASB processes correctly. It also did not contact the resident to discuss his reports within 5 working days either in October 2023 or March and April 2024. However, it did offer an amount of compensation in its final complaint response, which the resident accepted.
  17. It is the Ombudsman’s view the offer totalling £150 compensation is proportionate redress for the impact on the resident of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.
  18. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the resident that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of reports of ASB.

The associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  2. When the resident raised the complaint of 16 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged it on 22 April 2024. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy of being within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord then emailed the resident on 7 May 2024 and said it had extended the deadline to respond from 7 May 2024 to 14 May 2024. It did not provide any good reason for this, only that it did not want to rush its response.
  4. When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response of 14 May 2024, it acknowledged it did not complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan to investigate matters when the resident made new ASB reports in August 2023. However, it said it did not uphold the complaint, which was unreasonable as it had acknowledged service failings.
  5. When the resident asked to escalate on 17 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged the request on 22 May 2024. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy of being within 5 working days.
  6. The landlord then issued its final complaint response on 11 June 2024. This was again within the required timescales. It acknowledged service failures with its stage 1 complaint handling process and that it should have upheld the complaint. It also acknowledged it should have considered offering compensation. It therefore apologised and offered £100 compensation for that.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to deal with the stage 1 complaint correctly. However, it recognised its failings and offered the resident adequate resolution in its stage 2 decision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation it had previously offered totalling £250 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of ASB and the associated complaint (if it has not done so already). The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.