Coastline Housing Limited (202300842)

Decision
Case ID	202300842
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Coastline Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

The landlord has said it had vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems as she was disabled. The resident told us that she had vulnerabilities due to depression.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and her request to move to another property as a result.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her request to move to another property as a result.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

While the landlord did take some positive steps, it did not complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity. There is no record that it explained to the resident if it considered her reports to be ASB or not. There is also no record that it managed the resident’s expectations at an early stage.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint responses did not identify its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It also did not consider all the resident’s reports of ASB or tell her if it had upheld her complaint.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150, made up as follows: £100 for its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her request to move to another property as a result. £50 for its complaint handling failures. 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 15 January 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has: If she is reporting further ASB, the landlord is to agree a time specific action plan. Explain what evidence it would need, how the resident can provide such evidence and any action it could take. Offer the resident with support through internal and external agencies.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2023	We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on this date and asked it to raise a complaint.
21 November 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It had visited her on 15 November 2023 to discuss her complaint. After its meeting with her it had inspected the areas around her block of flats. It considered the area to be well managed. It had raised a job to remove some litter it saw and would take legal advice to have an untaxed car it saw removed. It had very few properties in the area she wanted to move to, so it could not help her with a management transfer. It could not tell her what priority for rehousing she had, but it would contact the local authority who managed the housing register and let her know. It was not her housing officer’s role to provide her with more support. It would ask them to speak to her social worker to see whether there was any other support that could be provided to her. Her housing officer would discuss other housing options with her social worker. It would provide and install a ring doorbell for her, to ease her concerns about calling at her home.
05 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she wanted it to sort the ASB she had reported to it.
23 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It thanked her for attending a review panel meeting on 12 January 2024 and said: It understood that having the review panel meeting in a place she felt comfortable was important to her, along with allowing her support workers to attend. It had taken appropriate action after it had received her reports of ASB from 2018 onwards and listed these reports. It had started putting stickers on items that were left in the communal stairwell, asking for them to be removed. It had not been able to act following her reports, as there was no evidence of ASB from her neighbours or visitors to the block of flats. The noise issues she had reported did not reach the threshold of number or severity for it to act. It appreciated this had been upsetting for her which had impacted on her anxiety. It was unable to install CCTV at her block of flats as this was for ongoing significant ASB or crime. It had installed a ring doorbell, and she confirmed the incidents of ASB had reduced since it had done so. She should continue to report ASB, and it would continue to support her and act appropriately under its ASB policy. The properties she wanted to move to were restricted to people over the age of 55 or those who needed a social services care package. The local authority had confirmed she was in “band A” for rehousing. It had been unable to find any service failure by it, but it would continue to support her.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 31 January 2024. She said: She felt the landlord had not considered her health in its response and had ignored her. She wanted the landlord to move her to a new property, as an outcome to her complaint.

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.

What we did not consider

The resident told us that she wanted the landlord to move her to another property as an outcome to her complaint. However, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to rehouse a resident. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its allocation policy which decides the priority of applicants on its waiting list. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.

Complaint	Antisocial Behaviour
Finding	Service failure

ASB

The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023. She asked it to install security cameras at her block of flats. It responded to her the next day and said it could not install security cameras due to the high costs involved. However, it did agree to buy and install a ring doorbell at her property. This was reasonable and shows that it wanted to support her to manage the issue.
The landlord’s records show that it had to find the funding to buy a ring doorbell at the point it told the resident it would be doing this. It did not find the funding for this until 1 November 2023 and completed the installation sometime in late November or early December 2023. However, there is no record that it kept the resident updated on the progress of this, which is likely to have caused her confusion and frustration. This is evident by her further report of ASB on 31 October 2023, when she said someone had tried to open her door. As a result, she asked it to install security cameras in the communal hallway.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2023 to report ASB from a neighbour smoking cannabis. Its records show that it told her to report this to the police. On 6 April 2023, she reported that people were banging on her door, and children were setting things on fire. As a result, she did not feel safe in her property. The landlord’s records show it opened an ASB case on 6 April 2023. This was reasonable. However, there is no record that it explained to her what it could and could not do to resolve the issues or if it considered the issues to be ASB or not. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will explain to residents the importance of the processes in dealing with ASB.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance, part of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014, states that reported incidents of ASB should be risk assessed at the earliest opportunity to ensure an appropriate response. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported ASB is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being. The landlord’s evidence shows it completed a risk assessment on 10 January 2024. However, this was 196 working days since the resident’s report of ASB on 31 March 2023. Conducting a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity would have allowed the landlord to identify and evaluate any specific risks faced by the resident, who it knew had vulnerabilities, in relation to the reported ASB. A risk assessment at the earliest opportunity would have allowed it to have offered support to the resident at the earliest stage. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow Government guidance.
The landlord met with the resident at its offices on 12 April 2023 to discuss her reports of ASB further. This was reasonable and shows it was taking steps to resolve the issue. Its records show that it offered to provide her with diary sheets, which she rejected. However, there is no record that it explained to her that its response to her reports of ASB may be limited if she did not engage meaningfully with the reporting process. This was a failure to follow its ASB policy which says it will do this.
At the meeting with the landlord the resident reported that people were leaving belongings in the communal hallway. The landlord’s records show that it took steps to address this, and its evidence shows the items were removed on 24 April 2023. Its records show it also took prompt action about her reports of fly tipping on 12 December 2023, when it contacted her neighbour to remove the items. This was reasonable and in line with its good neighbour policy which says it will take action to investigate such problems.
The landlord’s records show that a support worker for the resident contacted it on 24 April 2024. They said they had visited the resident, who had said she was being targeted by neighbours and called the police due to this. The police had told her that they could not take any action as there was no evidence. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the police about this. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy which says it will work collaboratively with its partner agencies to reduce and minimise ASB through preventative action.
The resident told us that she felt that the landlord had not taken her vulnerabilities into account in its response to her reports of ASB. However, its records show that it responded to her reports promptly and it made reasonable adjustments to change the venue of its stage 2 panel meeting with her on 12 January 2024 and ensured her support workers attended the meeting. This was reasonable and shows it did take her vulnerabilities into account.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had not been able to act following the resident’s reports of ASB, due to lack of evidence and that the noise issue did not meet the threshold for legal action. However, there is no record that it communicated this to her immediately after she had reported the issues. Had it done so it may have been able to manage her expectations at an earlier stage. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the resident had told it that incidents of ASB had reduced since it had installed the doorbell camera at her property. This shows that this step it took had a positive benefit for the resident, which was reasonable.

Request to move property

The evidence shows the resident was becoming increasingly frustrated with the ASB she had reported. She told it on 6 November 2023 that she wanted to move from her property. It was reasonable that the landlord liaised with adult social services about her housing options on 23 November 2023.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that it had very few properties in her area of choice, so it was unable to complete a management transfer. As the local authority managed the housing register it could not confirm her priority for rehousing. However, it obtained this information and told her what her housing priority was on 28 November 2024. This was reasonable and shows it was responsive to her request.
The resident told the landlord at the stage 2 panel meeting that she wanted to move as living in her property was still causing her anxiety. It was positive that the landlord discussed her housing options with her and made enquiries following the meeting. Its stage 2 response explained that she would need a social services care package to move to the properties she had mentioned. It was reasonable that it confirmed its position here for the benefit of the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also told the resident of her housing options through the local authority’s choice-based lettings system. It also said that it would support her on bidding for properties. This was reasonable.

Summary

Overall, there was positive elements to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It installed a doorbell camera and its communication with her after she had made reports to it was prompt. It also provided her with clear advice on her housing options. However, the evidence shows that it did not manage her expectations at an early stage effectively or fully follow its ASB policy. There is also no record that it investigated her reports of children starting fires. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and distress.
Although the resident had told the landlord of the negative impact the ASB had on her, there is no evidence that shows there was any imminent threat to her, and she had told it that the situation had improved following it installing the doorbell camera.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has and clearly explain what it can and cannot do to resolve any issues she may have.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 2 working days and within 5 working days at stage 2. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will hold a review panel meeting within 10 working days of its acknowledgement and send its response within 10 working days of the panel meeting.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and response to the resident within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 6 December 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. This was 1 working day after she had asked it to escalate her complaint, which was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that it delayed its stage 2 panel review with agreement of the resident so that her support workers could attend. It was reasonable that due to this it did not meet its timeframe to have this meeting within 10 working days of sending its acknowledgement.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response 7 working days after its review panel meeting. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response focussed on the resident’s request to move to another property. It did not adequately address her reports of ASB. This was a complaint handling failure that is likely to have caused the resident confusion. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained to her whether it considered her reports to be ASB or not and what it could do to support her in resolving the situation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was of a good quality. It listed most of the resident’s reports of ASB and explained to her what it had done following her reports and that its investigation was limited due to a lack of evidence and severity of the issue she reported. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses considered the resident’s request to move to another property. It set out her housing options and what she needed to do to improve her chances of moving into supported accommodation. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not consider the resident’s reports of children starting fires. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy that says its complaints process is comprehensive.
While the landlord’s complaint responses said that it did not find it was responsible for any service failures, it did not tell the resident if it had upheld her complaint. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not identify the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB, which we have found in our investigation. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a total of £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff.

Learning

It was positive that as well as installing a ring doorbell at the resident’s property, the landlord sent her instructions on how she could record and save video footage from the camera.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was adequate. The evidence shows there was only one record keeping failure, as there is no evidence that it told the resident at an early stage that it may not be able to act following her reports of ASB.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was good. Its records show that it responded to her reports of ASB promptly. It was also positive that it allowed her support workers to attend its stage 2 panel review meeting.