Citizen Housing Group Limited (202334164)

Decision
Case ID	202334164
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Citizen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident moved to her property in December 2022 via a mutual exchange. She left her former property because of ASB issues. The resident is disabled and lives there with her husband and son. She complained to the landlord because she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB reports and issues at her new property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) reports in her former home.
2. Concerns about the condition of her mutual exchange property.
3. Ground maintenance issues including parking.
4. Concerns about potholes.
5. Concerns about drains and flooding.
6. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports in her former home.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her mutual exchange property.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ground maintenance issues including parking.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about potholes.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drains and flooding.
6. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports in her former home

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was reasonable. It worked with the police, who issued community orders, and kept the resident informed. Its actions were in line with its policy and good practice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her mutual exchange property

The landlord accepted it delayed completing the resident’s electricity check. Its repair records were poor, and we have been unable to determine it completed repairs in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of ground maintenance issues including parking

The landlord’s handling was reasonable, and it acted on the resident’s feedback.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about potholes

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, which it accepted in its complaint response. It delayed completing urgent work to the potholes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drains and flooding

The landlord completed work to improve drainage, but it delayed taking action to resolve the recurring problem. The resident has health issues, and this had an adverse effect on her. It accepted its communication was poor in its complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale. It sent its stage 2 response 2 working days late, but this delay did not cause any significant detriment.

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 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 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her mutual exchange property. This includes an additional £50 to that offered at stage 1. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about potholes £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about drains and flooding. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Further information order The landlord must contact the resident and accurately record her disability and vulnerabilities.	No later than 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord and said: she moved home because her family were harassed at her previous property and feared for their lives. She said the landlord failed to deal with the ASB and this affected her and her family’s mental and physical health she was unhappy with the condition of the mutual exchange property there was an historic drainage issue with the communal drains which caused flooding around her house. She said the flooding prevented her and her family from leaving or entering the property the private road was in a poor condition and had potholes. She also said the entrance barrier was broke and trees and bushes were overgrown the parking was insufficient, there were no parking permits and non-residents parked in the area.
28 June 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
11 July 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response and said it found no failure in its handling of the ASB, or her concerns following mutual exchange. It said: it communicated regularly with her on the ASB case and managed her expectations rubbish left by the previous resident was not its responsibility. She inspected the property before she accepted and moved in it reviewed the parking situation with its external provider, and its housing officer would contact her with an update the recent weather was an act of nature which impacted the drains and other homes too. It said it cleared the gully and removed all waste it would consider her feedback about the potholes and overall condition of the area in future redevelopments.
31 August 2023	The resident escalated her complaint and said the landlord did not investigate her concerns properly. She requested all future communication by email and said: the landlord did not act promptly or take appropriate action on her harassment and ASB reports. She requested copies of all her ASB call logs it completed work after she moved in, which included an electricity safety check. She also reported repairs were needed to her patio, kitchen and bathroom it did not resolve the drainage problem. She said this caused flooding when it rained and made it hard for to leave her house and the road because of her mobility issues the road was narrow with no drives. It did not have parking patrols or permits in place, which led to non-residents parking in the area. She also said it did not maintain the entrance barrier or fix the potholes.
4 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and said it would respond within 20 working days.
2 October 2023	The landlord sent its stage 2 response and said: it found no failure in its handling of her ASB case. It spoke to all households, kept the resident informed and worked with the police who issued community orders as a resolution she accepted the mutual exchange property ‘as seen’. It was not responsible for rubbish left by the previous tenant, and it raised repairs needed before she signed the tenancy. It accepted it delayed completing her electricity check and offered £50 compensation for its failure. It asked her to contact it if she needed repairs. It said her kitchen was due for inspection in 2023 and her bathroom in 2043 it apologised for its poor communication about the drainage problems and potholes and offered £50 compensation it said it would arrange a joint visit with the drainage company, and said its surveyor recommended it cleaned the drains every 6 months it completed work to 2 large potholes following its inspection it issued parking permits and reinstated patrols.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to us because at the time, the landlord did not resolve the issues with the drains which caused flooding. She wanted an apology, for the landlord to take learnings for the future and compensate her for the length of time it took and effect this had on her and her family.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports in her former home
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said the ASB had a detrimental impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further in any other complaint issue. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
As part of her complaint, the resident requested a copy of her call logs, but the landlord said it only kept recordings on file for 30 days. She can make a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the landlord for this information. If she is unhappy with its response, she can contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). We did not consider this part of her complaint because the issue falls within the jurisdiction of another regulator.

What we did investigate

The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 7 June 2022, which included threats to kill and physical violence by 3 neighbours the night before. The landlord contacted the resident the same day which was appropriate based on the seriousness of the ASB. It gave her advice and told her it would speak to her neighbours and the police.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord spoke to the resident and her neighbours, reminded them of their tenancy terms and completed an action plan. It carried out a joint visit with the police on 5 August 2022 and gave the resident advice. Following this visit it told the resident it had done all it could, and it closed the ASB case.
On 23 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord because a neighbour breached the community protection notice (CPN). She was unhappy the landlord did not take any action. The police issued the CPN, so it was reasonable for the landlord to refer her to the police. It sent her diary sheets to log future incidents and repeated its previous advice to remove herself from conflicting situations.
There was one occasion on 15 June 2022 when the landlord did not get back to the resident promptly. However, its delay did not cause any significant impact. Due to her ASB concerns, it also gave her advice on a mutual exchange and approved her application. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was reasonable and we found no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her mutual exchange property
Finding	Service failure

The resident moved into her mutual exchange property on 19 December 2022. Before moving, she asked the landlord to complete the electricity check during the inspection. It told her it would arrange the check on the day of sign–up. She contacted the landlord on 26 January 2023 to ask about its check. The landlord did not respond, which caused her time and trouble contacting it again on 13 February 2023 to ask when it would complete this. It did not complete the electricity safety check until 13 March 2023, which was 12 weeks after the resident moved into the property.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said the garden was overgrown and full of rubbish. She said it cost her money to clear. In its complaint responses, the landlord said rubbish left by the former tenant was not its responsibility. It said it placed trust on both parties to leave the property in a suitable condition. This was reasonable because the inspection form said the garden was the former tenant’s responsibility. The inspection form said it was unidentifiable due to vegetation, so the resident was aware of this before she moved in and signed to accept the property ‘as seen’.
As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she reported various repairs and was unhappy it completed work after she moved in. The inspection form identified repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility. In its stage 2 response, it said it raised work for the repairs needed before she signed the tenancy. However, its repair records are poor and do not show when it raised the work, what it completed or when.
The resident also said the landlord needed to replace her patio, repair her fan airing system and assess her kitchen and bathroom. In its stage 2 response, it said the inspection form found no patio repairs were needed for 6 months. It said it did not receive any contact from her in this time and advised her how to report a repair. It also asked the resident for more information about her fan airing system but said she did not respond. It told the resident her bathroom was due for an inspection in 2043 for replacement and her kitchen in 2023. It told us it completed her kitchen installation in June 2024 but could not find its inspection report.
The landlord’s record keeping is poor, and due to a lack of evidence we are unable to show it acted reasonably and in accordance with its repairs policy. In view of this, its poor communication and delay in completing an electrical safety check, we found service failure. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it failed to complete the electrical check before her tenancy started, which it said was due to an admin error. It offered £50 compensation. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation which is proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ground maintenance issues including parking
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained about insufficient parking. She said school parents and other non-residents parked on the road and she was unhappy the landlord did not enforce parking patrols. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would review whether to reinstate patrols with its external service provider and would contact her. It said there would be a limit of 2 parking permits per household. In September 2023 the landlord issued parking permits and confirmed patrols would start.
The resident complained the roads were narrow and houses had no drives, which caused parking issues. This is outside the landlord’s control, and we cannot order it to install drives. In its stage 1 response, it advised the resident she could convert her front garden to extend her parking options, which was reasonable.
The resident also complained about overgrown trees and bushes at the entrance and said the entrance barrier and fence were broken. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had forwarded her information to the relevant team to investigate. Since its stage 2 response, it repaired the communal fence and said its ground maintenance team attend regularly to deal with the shrubs, grass and overgrown weeds, which is positive. It told us the barrier remains out of use.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s parking and ground maintenance issues was reasonable and it acted on her feedback. In view of this, we found no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about potholes
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported potholes to the landlord twice in January 2023 and said they were dangerous. It did not respond to her which caused her time and trouble complaining on 26 June 2023.
In its stage 1 response, it thanked her for her feedback to consider in any future developments. The resident was unhappy with its response and said the potholes damaged her car’s suspension.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it inspected the area earlier that year and completed urgent work on 2 large areas. It said its surveyor deemed the other area non–urgent and it would survey and do the work in the next 5 years. It apologised for its poor communication and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord gave the resident incorrect information about the completed work. It arranged an inspection on 5 June 2023 which found 2 areas were poorly repaired previously. The inspection report said the potholes were a severe hazard. Its surveyor recommended urgent work before an accident happened. However, it told us it did not complete the work until July 2024 and gave no reason for its delay.
Due to its poor communication and delay completing the urgent work, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about potholes. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This award recognises the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and is in keeping with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drains and flooding
Finding	Maladministration

On 12 June 2023 the resident reported a blocked drain in her garden and said it was overflowing. The landlord attended on 13 June 2023 but could not clear the blockage and arranged for a tanker to attend on 24 June 2023. Due to an issue with the tanker, it did not complete work on that date. This was likely to have caused distress to the resident but the breakdown issue with the tanker was outside the landlord’s control. It attended again on 29 June 2023 and said it cleared the gully and removed all waste.
In her complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord did not resolve the issue with her drain or the communal drains which affected her property. She said she used sandbags to stop flooding in her house and had to carry heavy buckets of water which caused her pain. She said her mobility issues made it difficult for her to leave the road when it rained because of flooding caused by the drain issues.
After her complaint escalation, the landlord contacted the resident and said it would arrange a joint visit with its drainage contractor. It also told her its survey recommended it cleaned the communal drains every 6 months. It repeated this in its stage 2 response and accepted its communication about the drain issues, including potholes, could have been better. It offered her £50 compensation.
Following its stage 2 response, the resident continued to experience flooding due to the drains. The landlord completed surveys and cleared the drains in line with its surveyor’s recommendations, but this did not resolve the issue. She reported further issues with the communal drains, which affected her property, in October 2023 and from January to March 2024. Its survey in March 2024 found the resident’s drain had collapsed. The landlord said it repaired her drain, and 4 other properties drains on 6 April 2024. However, it did not resolve the issue and she reported more problems from September to December 2024. The landlord attended to clear blockages during this time.
The landlord attempted to improve the drainage, but it did not resolve the underlying cause of the recurring issues until July 2025 when it resurfaced the road and installed new manholes and drains. Its delay caused the resident time and distress reporting further issues and experiencing flooding in her home. We found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about drains and flooding. Considering the impact on her and her family, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for any distress and inconvenience it caused. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident.
The resident referred to her health issues in her complaint, but the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident and accurately record her disability and vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 22 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was not compliant with its policy or the Code, unless it agreed an extension. However, the 2-working day delay was unlikely to have caused a significant impact to the resident or affect the overall outcome.
In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

The landlord should review its ASB policy to ensure it is clear on what steps it would take and it should include timescales.
The landlord should review its tenancy and licence management policy and consider creating a separate mutual exchange policy that sets out guidance and both parties’ obligations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s ASB recording keeping was poor. It did not provide us copies of its risk assessments, action plan or interviews.
The landlord’s repair records were poor. It logged repair reports but did not record when it raised a repair, the work it did and when. The landlord should make sure its repair records are accurate and complete.
The landlord was unable to locate its inspection report of the resident’s kitchen installation, or the follow-on work it did after its drain repair on 21 March 2024. This is evidence of poor record keeping. We expect landlords to have a record of its inspections and follow on work completed.

Communication

The landlord should consider how it can improve its communications with residents for repair updates and ensure it gives accurate information.