East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202449137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449137

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 relating to an intruder gaining access into her property.
   2. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord which started in September 2022. She occupies a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat in a supported housing scheme. The landlord has told the Ombudsman the resident has a number of disclosed mental health issues.
3. From December 2022 onwards, the resident made multiple reports to the landlord regarding concerns that someone was gaining access to her property, “making a mess”, and taking or damaging her belongings. On 29 October 2024, she complained to it about its lack of action or any response to her reports, noting she had paid to have the locks changed herself 3 times. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it was very sorry she believed someone was entering her flat and taking items, but there was no evidence to suggest this was the case.
4. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 January 2025. She accepted no one was being picked up on the CCTV cameras on the ground floor, saying “the only alternative … is it has to be someone on this corridor”. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 4 March 2025, maintained it had addressed her concerns in a reasonable manner and had taken a partnership approach.
5. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 April 2025 because her concerns remained unresolved by the landlord. She has told us she would like CCTV installed on the first floor so she can feel safer and more secure in her property. She is also seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

An intruder gaining access into her property

6. The Ombudsman has been provided with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) and vulnerable residents policies, both dated May 2024. It is unclear if there was an earlier version of the vulnerable residents policy. However, through our casework, we have sourced an earlier ASB policy, dated October 2020, which incorporates the landlord’s approach to vulnerable residents.
7. The key provisions of the ASB policy state:
   1. The landlord will always take into account the resident’s views, but it is ultimately responsible for deciding if a report is ASB, how it should be categorised, and agreeing the most appropriate course of action in a case.
   2. It will assess reports of ASB and prioritise these to manage any risk of harm quickly and appropriately. It will respond to high risk cases – “where there is a genuine risk of physical or psychological harm” – within 24 working hours, and medium and low risk cases within 5 working days.
   3. It works to identify and address vulnerability at various stages throughout its handling of a case and take appropriate steps to reduce any risk.
   4. It will actively participate in multi-agency arrangements for safeguarding.
   5. Where a resident continues to report issues it has explained it does not deal with, it will consider whether it needs to take action to address this – for example, by offering support for any additional needs or vulnerabilities.
8. The landlord’s policy on vulnerable residents states it will:
   1. Consider customer vulnerability “whenever contact is made” in order to identify vulnerable residents.
   2. Report safeguarding concerns promptly, refer or signpost residents for appropriate advice and support, and follow up on referrals.
   3. Take a multi-agency approach where appropriate to co-ordinate activity.
   4. Check the resident’s understanding of their situation, rights, and responsibilities, and the consequences of action or inaction on their part.
   5. Where possible, focus on the individual needs and circumstances of vulnerable residents and make person-centred adjustments to its service.
9. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events, so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
10. In this case, emails from the resident and the landlord indicate that, in response to some of her reports, the on-site warden contacted the resident and checked the building’s CCTV cameras. However, there are no contemporaneous records of these actions. This amounts to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide this Service with information for our investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess if the landlord always took timely and appropriate actions.
11. Records show the resident’s early concerns about the security of her property were dealt with proportionately by the landlord. It apologised that there was no CCTV on the first floor, reassured her, and explained it would not change the locks but she could do this herself.
12. The resident first reported concerns that someone was “getting into her property and making a mess of her flat” to the landlord on 5 December 2022. This was followed by a report on 12 January 2023 that someone had removed the latches from her living room windows and changed the shower head. Each time, the landlord advised her to report these issues to the police. Its notes of a welfare visit on 17 January 2023 recorded that the resident said she would speak to her support worker about the recent incidents she had reported. No risk assessment was completed and there is no evidence of any investigation at the time, which was inconsistent with the ASB policy..
13. The reports appear to have resumed in November 2023. From November 2023 to October 2024 (when the resident lodged her formal complaint), she made at least 8 separate reports of someone entering her property and taking or damaging her things. The behaviour of the sort reported by the resident was clearly concerning and distressing for her. She reported feeling “lost” and “unable to live any sort of life that [has] quality”. While there is evidence the warden “did check the video cam but couldn’t see anything”, as there was no CCTV on the first floor, this did not allay the resident’s concerns.
14. The landlord’s communications with the resident regarding CCTV on the first floor could have been clearer. For example, in an email of 20 December 2023, she suggested that installing CCTV on the first floor would stop the ongoing issues she was having. The landlord advised, on 3 January 2024, that it would feed back this suggestion, but it did not confirm to her the outcome of its internal enquiries. Consequently, she asked the question again during a telephone call on 17 April 2024. Although the Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence of internal discussions about this, the landlord advised the resident it would not extend the CCTV to cover the first floor. It did not explain its decision, which would have demonstrated openness/transparency.
15. Internal emails dated 3 and 4 January 2024 indicate the landlord called the resident in response to a recent report. It advised her to contact the police so they could investigate, although there was no evidence of a break-in. It told her it was unable to take any action if she did not know who was breaking into her property. It explained it was unlikely CCTV would be installed on the first floor but, nevertheless, it asked internally if the CCTV could be extended. It also noted she had now installed a doorbell camera in the hallway of her flat, as per the on-site warden’s suggestion, and the warden had supported her in using this. These were all proportionate and reasonable measures in the circumstances, as the Ombudsman accepts the landlord required an evidential basis for any action it could take.
16. The evidence indicates the landlord had information about the resident’s mental health that informed its decision making in its handling of her reports. However, there is no evidence it adopted a multi-agency approach and/or took steps to safeguard her wellbeing, in line with its policies. For instance, it is unclear if it contacted the community mental health team to find out if they were still supporting the resident, as suggested in an internal email of 4 January 2024. Under its vulnerable residents policy, it would have been good practice for it to review her circumstances from time to time. In fact, it did not make a safeguarding referral until February/March 2025, over a year later.
17. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy says it will consider adjustments in its service delivery (which could cover a departure from its policies and normal procedures), but also that it will check the resident’s understanding of their situation. Therefore, any departure from the landlord’s ASB policy should have been clearly documented and communicated to the resident with reference to the available evidence. For instance, it would have been good practice for it to have a conversation with her to explain the information it had and how this was going to change the way it responded to her reports. This would have given the resident a fair opportunity to challenge any change in approach. That it did not do so amounts to a key failing in the landlord’s communications, which resulted in a mis-management of the resident’s expectations.
18. The landlord’s record dated 17 January 2023 shows that it attributed the resident’s early reports to her mental health condition. Thereafter, it seems it did not take her subsequent reports seriously. For example, an internal email of 8 November 2024 stated “this is ongoing issues with [the resident’s property] nobody else in the building has had anything happen/go missing”. This was dismissive, which was inappropriate, especially given the resident’s vulnerability. On a number of occasions, she expressed dissatisfaction with the warden’s response, or lack of response, to her reports.
19. There was also a delay in the landlord engaging the police as part of a multi-agency approach. It appears to have first contacted the police for details of any investigations they had conducted into reports made by the resident following her formal complaint. The on-site warden’s email of 8 November 2024 stated the police had spoken to them and “have also done safeguarding and been in touch with GP I think”. There is no other evidence relating to this, which further highlights poor record keeping practices. Thereafter, the stage 1 response suggested a joint meeting with the resident and the police to try to support her, but this did not go ahead at the time.
20. Notes of the landlord’s visit to the resident on 7 February 2025 demonstrated a marked improvement in its handling of matters and an approach consistent with its policies. It clearly explained that, like the police, it could not take any further action in respect of the resident’s reports of ASB because there was no evidence to show someone was entering the property. It discussed access to the flat, the security of the building, and confirmed the resident’s camera was in good working order. It said it was unlikely additional CCTV covering the first floor would be approved, but the housing officer would ask the question. Finally, it discussed its concerns relating to her mental health and wellbeing, saying it would make a safeguarding referral and contact her GP about additional support.
21. Thereafter, the landlord opened an ASB case on 28 February 2025 following receipt of the resident’s further report that she had seen one of her neighbours accessing her flat on 10 February 2025. However, there is no evidence it investigated this. Further, contrary to its ASB policy and good practice, it did not complete a risk assessment until 3 July 2025. This was only after it had decided to close the ASB case, at which point it was identified that a risk assessment had not been carried out, as per normal procedure.
22. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports relating to an intruder gaining access into her property because:
    1. Gaps in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggest a failure to keep adequate records and/or to provide information for our investigation.
    2. It did not deal with the resident’s reports in line with its ASB and vulnerable residents policies and failed to clearly communicate to the resident any departure from its usual procedures.
    3. An ASB case was not opened until 28 February 2025, over 2 years after the resident first reported an intruder gaining access into her property, and a risk assessment was completed on 3 July 2025, over 4 months later.
    4. There is insufficient evidence to show it undertook reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports at times.
    5. It attributed the resident’s early reports to her mental health and did not review this.
    6. It delayed in adopting a multi-agency approach in respect of both the ASB reports and the resident’s vulnerability.
    7. It did not take timely and reasonable steps to safeguard the resident’s mental health and wellbeing.
23. It is evident the resident experienced a significant amount of concern and distress in this case, primarily due to the nature of the issues being reported. The landlord’s failings exacerbated this and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, which were compounded due to the resident’s vulnerability. In all the circumstances, we find it is appropriate to direct the landlord to pay compensation for the adverse impact its failings had on the resident, in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 29 October 2024 within 5 working days. It advised that it aimed to provide its response by 18 November 2024. This was in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
25. Although the stage 1 letter was dated 18 November 2024, the landlord’s email to the resident’s local MP on 21 November 2024 stated it had sent her its response that same day. However, the resident’s email exchange with the landlord on 20 and 21 November 2024 suggests she received the response on 20 November 2024. This is a further example of poor record keeping practices. While we cannot establish exactly when the response was issued, evidence from multiple sources indicates the landlord exceeded the 10-working-day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code, which was unsatisfactory.
26. The stage 1 response detailed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. It said it understood she had had a doorbell camera fitted as well as cameras inside her flat, which had not picked up any evidence of anyone entering her property. It explained that the CCTV footage, which covered the whole of the ground floor and all entrances to the building, had been reviewed by the on-site warden and the police, but they could not identify anything or anyone suspicious. Therefore, it did not believe changing the locks for a fourth time or other security measures were necessary, and it would not install any further CCTV cameras. However, it was keen to help her with her concerns and try to support her, so it was arranging a joint meeting with her and the police. It was appropriate for the landlord to clearly explain its decision making with reference to the available evidence, which demonstrated openness.
27. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 24 January 2025. This was acknowledged by the landlord 8 working days later, on 4 February 2025. This was 3 days outside the 5-working-day timescale in its complaints policy and the Code. It would have been good practice for the landlord to address this short delay in its stage 2 response, but it did not do so. Further, its compensation policy provides it should have offered compensation of £10 for such a delay.
28. The landlord advised the resident it would aim to provide its final response within 20 working days. In fact, it issued its stage 2 response 21 working days later, on 4 March 2025. Although just outside the 20-working-day timeframe in its policy and the Code, there is no evidence this slight delay had any material impact on the resident.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was sorry the resident did not feel safe and secure in her property and that she did not feel listened to. Having investigated her complaint, it found it had responded to her, discussed her concerns and rightly referred her to the police. It said it was aware the building was secure and it had reviewed CCTV footage with her. Therefore, it concluded it had reviewed her concerns and taken a partnership approach. It said it would ask the police to carry out further checks in the area and visit her in her home to see if there was anything else they could do to make her feel safe and secure, and it would review matters in a few weeks’ time.
30. The stage 2 response demonstrated the landlord had taken a sensitive and sympathetic approach to the resident’s complaint, which was positive. However, it did not acknowledge any omissions in its handling of the resident’s reports, which was a missed opportunity to put things right and learn from the resident’s experience. This was inconsistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
31. The landlord’s complaints policy dated April 2024, obtained from its website, confirms it adopts the definition of a complaint provided in the Code: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The term ‘complaint’ does not need to be used to raise a complaint. We will accept any expression of dissatisfaction which meets out complaint definition.”
32. The resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction on multiple occasions that she did not feel supported by the on-site warden – on 29 and 30 October 2024, 4 November 2024, and 28 February 2025. However, those concerns were not addressed by the landlord as part of its responses at either stage of the complaints procedure. This was inconsistent with the Code, which requires landlords to address all issues raised in its complaint responses.
33. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, as there were slight unacknowledged delays and missed opportunities to address issues raised through the complaints process. The Ombudsman takes the view it is fair and reasonable to award compensation to the resident for the time and trouble caused to her as a result of the landlord’s shortcomings. Our award is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports relating to an intruder gaining access into her property.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £300, which comprises:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of her reports of an intruder gaining access into her property.
       2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to her as a result of its poor complaint handling.
       3. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, and considers refresher training for relevant frontline staff.