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.

Cross Keys Homes Limited (202313867)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313867

Cross Keys Homes Limited

18 March 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
    1. response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)
    2. complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured joint tenant of the landlord since 14 April 2023. He shares the property with his partner. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord holds no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. Between 27 April 2023 and 28 June 2023, the landlord responded to 3 reports of ASB from tenants of the block against the resident’s neighbour. On 30 June 2023, the landlord met with 3 tenants including the resident who reported drunken and abusive behaviour from the resident’s neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to evict his neighbour. The landlord advised that it needed clear evidence of ASB before it could act. The resident agreed to provide diary sheets on a weekly basis.
  3. On 4 July 2023, the resident reported that he had called the police because his neighbour:
    1. shouted racial abuse at him and threatened violence which terrified his partner.
    2. verbally abused other tenants of the block
    3. called fire service without reason
  4. On the same day, the landlord replied to the resident and said that its ASB team would be in contact in more detail. It said that the police were not taking any action against his neighbour having deemed that he had not committed a crime, which limited the action it could take. It said that the report of malicious communication to the fire service would need to be investigated by the police.
  5. On 4 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that the landlord had:
    1. breached its tenancy agreement by allowing his neighbour to breach the ASB and Nuisance section of his tenancy
    2. ignored the affect of the ASB on its tenant’s mental health and wellbeing
    3. allowed him to be racially abused
    4. failed to support affected tenants
  6. On 10 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold his complaint. It confirmed it had an open ASB case and was liaising with partner agencies to reduce and ultimately prevent any further causes of nuisance. It said it was working with the police to establish if it was bringing criminal charges against his neighbour and asked the resident to provide it with any evidence that he had in respect of the ASB. It said it would place the resident’s complaint on hold while it works through its ASB action plan.
  7. Between 11 July 2023 and 11 August 2023, the resident raised concerns about the landlord complaint process and its ASB investigation.
  8. The landlord agreed to escalate his complaint and held a stage 2 panel hearing with the resident on 19 September 2023. The resident complained that the landlord:
    1. breached its side of the tenancy agreement with his neighbour in respect of his ASB responsibilities
    2. allowed the resident to be racially abused and failed to take his concerns seriously
    3. failed to support affected tenants, including himself and his partner, particularly in respect of mental health
    4. failed in its complaint handling
    5. failed to follow its ASB policies and procedures
    6. as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted his neighbour evicted and the landlord to address each issue he raised
  9. On 28 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It did not dispute the resident’s experience of ASB. It said that:
    1. in respect of the tenancy breach that it was taking formal action against his neighbour
    2. it liaised with the police in respect of the alleged racial abuse but were unable to take any action
    3. it had not been made aware of mental health issues but offered to signpost affected tenants to support services
    4. it agreed that there was confusion in respect of its complaint handling, however it had complied with its complaints policy
    5. it had investigated the ASB in line with its policy and procedures
  10. As a resolution to the complaint, it would:
    1. continue to investigate ASB and pursue action against the resident’s neighbour in a timely manner
    2. review and amend (if necessary) its ASB and Complaint policies to ensure there is no scope for confusion when a resident escalates a complaint
    3. provide a single point of contact for the resident to rebuild trust with the landlord
    4. offer mediation service between the landlord and resident

Events after the internal complaint’s procedure

  1. On 24 April 2024, the landlord closed its ASB file because it had received no new complaints against the perpetrator and noted his behaviour had improved.
  2. On 9 March 2025, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord had moved his neighbour several months ago. He said that the ASB continued up until the point that he left. He had stopped reporting the ASB because the landlord did not do anything to help him. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted:
    1. the landlord to be held accountable for allowing the ASB to continue
    2. staff involved in this case to be retrained in its policies and procedures
    3. the landlord’s Residents Board to be overhauled because they were not interested in the safety and well being of the resident and his partner

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will use a range of investigative methods to obtain evidence of ASB, including interviews, diary sheets, phone calls and working in partnership with the police and local authorities.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will offer a range of positive interventions to perpetrators of ASB, including completion of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, access into job clubs, work programmes, tenancy sustainment support, substance misuse treatment services, Adult Social Care, community mental health treatment services and support engagement with these services alongside other professionals.
  3. It is not disputed that the resident had experienced ASB which left him feeling distressed. It is noted that the resident felt that the landlord allowed this ASB to happen. However, the landlord is not directly responsible for the neighbour’s actions and therefore the landlord is not responsible for any ASB caused by the neighbour. The landlord was obliged to investigate the reports, in line with its ASB policy and it would be expected to take action against the neighbour if it obtained sufficient evidence.
  4. Before the resident raised a complaint, the landlord responded to 3 reports of ASB from other tenants in the block. It visited the perpetrator 3 times to discuss his behaviour and support services he was receiving. Before its third visit, it met with affected tenants in the block, which included the resident, to discuss the issues. The landlord asked tenants to complete diary sheets on a weekly basis. It visited the perpetrator, issued an Acceptable Behaviours Contract, and agreed to carry out further regular visits to monitor his progress. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take within the scope of its ASB policy.
  5. On 4 July 2023, the resident reported an incident of ASB to the landlord. He reported that his neighbour had racially abused him, threatened violence, and called the fire services without reason. He said that the landlord had enough evidence to evict the perpetrator. The landlord responded that it had liaised with the police about the incident but noted that no crime had been committed, however, it would be taking appropriate action in respect of the report of ASB. This was a reasonable response to the resident.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to liaise with the police in respect of the incident and informed the resident that its ASB investigation remained open. It told the resident that it was visiting the perpetrator on a regular basis to provide advice on his conduct and breaches in relation to his tenancy. It asked the resident to continue to provide any evidence of ASB which would support legal enforcement. These were all appropriate steps to take, and the landlord communicated its position appropriately with the resident.
  7. On 23 July 2023, the resident reported a further incident of ASB. He reported that the perpetrator threw objects from his patio and smashed his own patio door. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the incident with the police and determined that there was no evidence of criminality and police were unlikely to take any action. It arranged a meeting with the police and decided to offer a managed move because seeking possession would be a slow process. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
  8. The landlord held a joint meeting with the neighbour, his sister, and the police. The neighbour agreed that a managed move would be the most appropriate step and agreed to work with the landlord to arrange this. This demonstrates that the landlord was proactively responding to the reports of ASB to find an appropriate solution for both the neighbour and other tenants of the block, including the resident.
  9. On 7 August 2023, the resident reported further ASB in the form of noise nuisance and racist abuse. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the police who reported that their file was closed because the resident did not wish to pursue the matter with them. The landlord continued to visit the perpetrator regularly in respect of his behaviour and reports of noise nuisance while it supported a managed move for him. These were all appropriate actions in the circumstances.
  10. After the stage 2 complaint response the evidence shows that the landlord continued to visit the perpetrator regularly and support him with a move. On 24 April 2024, it closed its ASB file because it had received no new complaints against the perpetrator and noted his behaviour had improved. It agreed to continue visiting with him. This was appropriate in the circumstances
  11. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Based on the evidence, the landlord effectively applied its ASB policy and responded appropriately to each report of ASB. It proactively and positively engaged with the perpetrator to assist in improving his behaviour and assisted the perpetrator with a managed move which was appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The Code sets out that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
  3. When considering an extension to a stage 1 complaint response the Code sets out that “landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.” The landlord had a duty to provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s details should it require an extension.
  4. In this case, the landlord provided the resident with an update on its ASB investigation in its stage 1 complaint response and said that it would put the complaint on hold until it completed its ASB investigation. This was inappropriate and did not comply with the Code. The landlord should have provided its complaint escalation process, and it should have provided the resident with the Ombudsman’s details.
  5. The landlord’s decision to place the complaint on hold caused frustration to the resident. He said that the landlord was making the rules up as they go and asked for a timeframe for the complaint investigation. He continued to express frustration about the process when the landlord decided to close the complaint. It closed the complaint because he did not want to escalate it and wanted the landlord to continue its investigation at stage 1. The landlord only escalated his complaint when the resident raised a separate complaint specifically about its complaint handling. This was inappropriate and indicates barriers to complaint escalation.
  6. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that “if the complaint warrants an extensive period of investigation to resolve a problem and achieve a satisfactory outcome then the resident should be advised that the complaint process will be suspended while the investigation is on-going.” This remains a stipulation in the landlord’s current complaints policy.
  7. It is inappropriate and unreasonable for a landlord to suspend its complaint process, and it does not comply with the Code. ASB investigations in particular, can be a lengthy process and it is unreasonable that a resident can not escalate a complaint until an ASB investigation is complete.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because there was a delay in escalating the complaint due to its complaints policy. This caused delay and frustration to the resident in progressing his complaint. An order of £100 compensation has been made below to reflect the time, trouble and frustration caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  9. On 8 February 2023, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
  10. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
  11. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble and frustration caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.