First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202534025)

Decision
Case ID	202534025
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	First Choice Homes Oldham Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). She said her neighbour intimidated and harassed her family, consistently drove over her driveway, used the wrong bins, and littered. She said she has a disability and one of her children has autism, which it was aware of. She also complained about how it handled her request for permission to install a fence to help resolve the dispute.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Request to install a fence.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Request to install a fence.
   3. Associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB by a neighbour

4. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly, requested further information, and explained what it could investigate. It met with both parties, maintained contact throughout, and took appropriate action where possible.

Request to install a fence

5. The landlord considered the request in line with its alteration guidance and planning regulations.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 October 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing issues with her neighbour. She said despite multiple reports, her family continued to experience harassment and intimidation. She said this affected their health and wellbeing. She said her neighbour had been using other resident bins and parking vehicles across her property. She reported the neighbour had verbally intimidated her and her family using derogatory language. She said while it referred the case to its ASB team, it had not contacted her.   The resident requested permission to install a fence, explaining it would help deter the parking issues and prevent further disputes. But the landlord refused to grant permission. She said she had raised several incidents with the police. She added that her neighbour also reported her, and the police recorded these reports as false and malicious callouts. She requested it commence injunction proceedings and carry out a tenancy review of her neighbour. She asked it to carry out an urgent safeguarding assessment for her family.
22 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
4 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it declined the resident’s request to install a fence in line with policy and planning requirements it attempted contact and issued advice by email and letter regarding the bin issue it identified the threatening language as potential ASB and requested further details when it received no response, it issued a 7 day closure letter and closed the case further reports of the neighbour throwing cat faeces into her garden had insufficient evidence to take action she reported verbal abuse and property damage and provided CCTV evidence the ASB officer issued diary sheets to record further incidents, requested additional CCTV footage, and advised her to report criminal matters to the police it invited the neighbour to an interview about the incident and requested information from the police to understand any reports or actions they had recorded it understood the incidents had caused her distress it explained the reports to date did not demonstrate a consistent pattern of ASB that would justify formal enforcement action it carried out ongoing safeguarding and risk assessments and worked with partner agencies to ensure appropriate support
5 November 2025	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint. She said it did not recognise the ongoing pattern of ASB, outline a safeguarding plan, or provide remedies or steps to protect her family’s wellbeing. The landlord acknowledged her request.
20 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had acted on each ASB report based on the information available it had spoken with the neighbour, with no further issues raised it was reviewing the footage the resident had provided. However, at this stage, it did not demonstrate a pattern of ASB that would justify formal action it would continue to monitor the most recent report its ASB officer would manage her case, maintain weekly contact, and complete a new risk assessment, including safeguarding referrals where appropriate it confirmed with the police that they were not treating the incidents as a hate crime it had insufficient evidence to pursue an injunction it remained committed to supporting her and would act on any further reports it repeated its position about the fence
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She wanted an apology and compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused. She also requested a clear plan for handling ASB and a review of its approach to risk assessments.

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	Reports of ASB by a neighbour
Finding	No maladministration

7. The resident reported ongoing ASB issues with her neighbour to the landlord on 25 March 2025. It responded on the same day, requested further information, and advised her to report any intimidation to the police. It explained that some of the issues raised did not meet the threshold for ASB. It directed her to the council to address concerns about bin usage and littering.
8. The landlords ASB policy does not set out any timescales to respond to report of ASB. However, its ASB guidance on its website outlines timescales for agreeing an action plan depending on the issue raised. It states it will act quickly when it becomes aware of a problem and will clearly explain what it can and cannot do. It would be beneficial to include expected timescales for responding to initial reports within its policy to help manage expectations. That said, it responded within one working day and advised what it could consider and next steps.
9. On 8 April 2025, the landlord followed up with the resident after receiving no response. It advised it would close the case if she did not provide further information within 7 days. It received no response and wrote to her on 15 April 2025 to confirm it had closed the case. This action aligns with its guidance, which states it will keep residents informed about what is happening with their case. It reasonably closed the case when she did not provide any further information and updated her accordingly.
10. There were no further reports of ASB until the resident raised her complaint to the landlord in October 2025, 6 months after her earlier reports. It responded within one working day to confirm it had received the evidence she provided and would review it in detail. It arranged an appointment with her to discuss her reports and contacted the police to request a disclosure of information. This aligns with its guidance, which states that it will work with partner agencies to address ASB.
11. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed it had closed the previous case because she had not provided further information. It stated it was reviewing the recent reports, the ASB officer had provided diary sheets, and it had asked her to continue supplying CCTV footage. It also confirmed that it would interview her neighbour about the issues raised. This approach aligns with its guidance, which states that it will act quickly, listen to all parties involved, and establish the facts.
12. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said it acted on the ASB reports using the information available at the time. It explained it reviewed the evidence the resident provided on 23 October 2025 and would take action where necessary. It said at this stage it did not demonstrate a pattern of ASB that would justify formal action. This was supported, as set out above, by the fact that it had not received any further reports for a 6 month period.
13. The landlord said it would complete a risk assessment and make a safeguarding referral to the council, if appropriate. The evidence does not show if a referral was made. However, it did complete a risk assessment although it is unclear when this was done. It said there was insufficient evidence at that time to take formal action, but it would act on any further reports and continue to review the evidence. This was a reasonable approach to continue to monitor the case and gather evidence to inform its decisions
14. The landlord’s ASB guidance states repeated incidents of verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, or threatening behaviour could constitute ASB. As the resident reported concerns of this nature, it could have provided a more detailed explanation of why it did not consider the reports to meet the threshold at that stage. However, it continued to review the evidence that she provided and monitor the case.
15. Following the final complaint response, the landlord liaised further with the police regarding the neighbour. It identified that sufficient evidence existed to take action and issued a tenancy warning letter. It authorised a management move and continued to review new reports of ASB.
16. In summary, the landlord could have offered more clarity as to why the behaviour had not met the threshold of ASB by its final complaint response. That said, it continued to monitor the residents reports and took action when it had sufficient evidence. Overall, it followed its policies and guidance in its handling of the ASB reports. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	Request to install a fence
Finding	No maladministration

17. The resident requested permission to install a fence at the front boundary of her property at her own cost. The landlord advised her how to submit an alteration request and asked for further information to inform its decision. Its alteration guidance does not specify expected response timescales. However, it provided an initial response within one working day and issued its formal response within 12 working days, which is reasonable.
18. The landlord wrote to her to confirm it would not grant permission. It explained that the property formed part of a new development with planning permission based on the original design, which it could not alter. It suggested alternative options, such as potted plants or other non-permanent fixtures, to discourage use of vehicles.
19. The landlord restated its position in its complaint responses. Its alterations guidance states that, even with approval, planning permission may still be required where applicable. While the guidance does not specify what cannot be considered, it relied on the existing planning permission for the new build development, which it could not deviate from. As such, it acted reasonably, and we have found no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Complaint Handling Code (the Code April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
21. The landlord acknowledged and issued both complaint responses within its policy timescales. We have, therefore, found no failings in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

General

22. The landlord’s ASB policy and guidance would benefit from including clear timescales for providing a response to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord has no record of vulnerabilities for the resident. Good practice requires landlords to update its records to accurately reflect a household’s circumstances.

Communication

24. Overall, communication was reasonable. The landlord responded to reports quickly and maintained contact throughout.