Flagship Housing Group Limited (202437733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437733

Flagship Housing Group Limited

7 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 1994. The property is an end-of-terrace, 2-bedroom house. The resident’s son lives with her.
Between September and November 2024, the resident logged reports of ASB by a neighbour. On 24 November 2024, she made a formal complaint about the landlord’s lack of response. She said she had been reporting the ASB for 2 months and it was not doing anything about it. She said she had called and emailed repeatedly without a response and the situation was affecting her mental health, which her doctor could confirm.
In its stage 1 response of 9 December 2024 the landlord apologised. It acknowledged it had either failed to return calls or missed the response timeframe of 5 working days. It said it had now responded to the resident and explained the steps she needed to take to log further incidents. It said as she had contacted the council it would liaise with them and keep her updated on progress. It said it understood how frustrating the lack of updates, about an issue that had significantly impacted her and her family, could be. It offered £100 for the delays and communication lapses.
The resident continued to log ASB reports between December 2024 and February 2025. She escalated her complaint on 11 February 2025 saying she was still no further forward, and the only time she had received contact was when she went through the complaints team. In its stage 2 response of 5 March 2025, the landlord said:
1. It had acknowledged there was an initial service failure and paid £100.
2. It had since responded to her reports and made clear what was required from her as part of the ASB investigation process.
3. It had told her that a number of her recordings evidenced noise beyond what it considered reasonable. It would contact the neighbour and offer a good neighbour contract (GNC).
4. It had offered to visit her and the neighbour to agree an acceptable volume but she did not feel this would be beneficial in resolving her concerns.
5. It had reviewed recent recordings, handwritten diary records and her emails. This provided 4 dates over 11 weeks where it could evidence ASB. It was satisfied the supportive interventions it had offered were most appropriate at that stage.
6. It understood gathering evidence to support the reports was frustrating, but it had to ensure it took a reasonable and proportionate approach to intervention. Should the matter go to court it would need to evidence its action was justified.
7. It could work with her to provide support via a referral to her GP, well-being services, or adult asocial services. It could additionally fund a course of independent remote counselling sessions.
The resident referred her complaint to us saying she had been having issues for the last 12 years, but this specific complaint began in September 2024. She said the situation was causing her anxiety, palpitations, and sleepless nights. She said the landlord told her it would send the neighbour a letter about expectations of behaviour but nothing had changed. She wanted the landlord to address the ASB so it would stop.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports

The resident told us she has continued to experience ASB and is no further forward following the landlord’s stage 2 response. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. Therefore, our investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s final response of March 2025. The resident should log a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports after this date. Once this has completed the landlord’s complaint process, she may refer it to us.
The resident has also told us that the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. We do not doubt her comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
It is not our role to establish the validity of the ASB reports made by the resident. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports to determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord accepted there were failures in its handling of the ASB reports. It apologised and offered compensation. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
The landlord’s ASB policy applicable at the time sets out that its purpose is to prevent and minimise instances of ASB and to resolve them as soon as possible through timely and appropriate intervention. It sets out behaviour it considers to be antisocial (including unreasonable levels of noise) and how it responds to reports. It says reports can be made online, by telephone or live chat, or directly to any member of staff. It says reports will be directed to specialist teams and residents will either be provided with advice and signposting or a case will be opened.
The policy says cases are assessed on a victim-led, risk basis, and action and communication plans will be agreed and provided to the reporter. It says the landlord will offer clear advice and information to manage expectations and keep all relevant parties informed of the status of the case. It says it will work in partnership with agencies such as the Police, Environmental Health Team (EHT) and Social Services (and any others deemed necessary) when dealing with ASB, understanding each agency’s roles and responsibilities. Where it is not the lead in a case, this will be clearly communicated to the resident.
The policy says the landlord will use a range of methods and its aim will always be to resolve cases as early as possible to prevent escalation and ongoing impact to victims. It says it will offer mediation where suitable. It does not set out any additional tools it could utilise to tackle or minimise ASB where legal action is not suitable. So, in addition to the above, we have considered good industry practices and our own expectations in the handling of ASB reports, such as warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC).
The evidence shows that, when the resident contacted the landlord in September 2024, it signposted her to the noise app and offered to send her diary/log sheets to gather evidence. It explained that it needed to evidence the reported noise to proceed. It diarised to contact her in 2 weeks to get an update. It then called her on 4 October 2024 and completed a risk assessment. A letter was sent to her neighbour the same day to advise that ASB reports had been received, which it would investigate (a copy of the letter was not provided to us, so its full details are not known). Overall, this was an appropriate initial response to the resident’s report.
However, there is no evidence of any prompt action then being taken by the landlord, or an explanation provided to the resident about the next steps and timeframes. This was in contravention of its policy which says it will communicate a clear action plan. The resident continued to report ASB and request updates throughout October 2024 without any response. The landlord ultimately contacted her on 28 October 2024 to say her submissions evidenced loud music and requested a call to discuss this.
In its call and email of 1 November 2024, the landlord told the resident it would visit the neighbour the following week to discuss the noise and update her afterwards. However, this did not happen. When she heard nothing, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times throughout November 2024 before logging her complaint about the lack of response. It only then provided an update on 27 November 2025, after the complaint was logged.
The landlord said it visited the neighbour to discuss what it considered to be a reasonable level of noise. It said it told the neighbour that unreasonable noise was unacceptable at any time, not just ‘unsociable hours’. It said it was sorry to hear the resident continued to experience noise, but it had not received any new recordings from her since 25 October 2024. It encouraged her to continue to submit recordings as, without this, it was difficult to measure the noise. It acknowledged that noise was experienced by her son even when she was not present, asking if he had been able to record it. It also enquired if the resident had contacted the council about the noise.
It is not known what was agreed with the neighbour during the landlord’s visit to discuss a change in behaviour. There is no evidence of any warnings, ABC, or any other meaningful action taken. The resident continued to report issues, even after the date of the proposed visit. So, when the landlord contacted her on 27 November 2024 with an update, it was on notice that the ‘long discussion’ it had had with the neighbour had made little/no difference. It should reasonably have known that its delayed update in that context would provide no reassurance. This meant that, even when it finally updated the resident, it did not evidence or explain what its visit had achieved.
The resident replied the same day saying the landlord had not signposted her to the council before. She said it had told her during the call of 1 November 2024 that it would be issuing an ABC for the neighbour to sign. She said it had taken a complaint for her to even receive a response, and she was still no further forward and was being ‘fobbed off’. There is no evidence the landlord had previously signposted her to the council nor had it arranged a noise app account for her son despite having confirmed he lived with her.
The landlord was already in possession of recordings that evidenced noise but, from the resident’s perspective, had not done anything meaningful about them. Instead, it was requesting more recordings for the period she was awaiting an update about what she had already sent, even though she had continued to report ASB via emails during that same period. It is understandable that the resident was left confused and upset by this delayed and unsatisfactory response.
The resident did not receive a response to this email and again had to request an update by calling and emailing. She ultimately spoke to the complaints team on 6 December 2024 and told them she had contacted the council which had responded to her the same day and written to the neighbour. She continued to wait to hear from the landlord’s ASB team, more specifically the community management officer (CMO) in charge of her case. Instead, a stage 1 response was issued. In this, the landlord said its CMO had contacted her and advised her of steps she needed to take about further reports, but this was not an accurate or satisfactory response for the reasons noted above.
The landlord said its service level agreement to respond to the resident’s contact was 5 working days, but we have seen no evidence of her being advised this until 23 January 2025. This meant she continued to chase for responses throughout December 2024 and January 2025 within that response timeframe. It is noted that the landlord also continued to miss the 5 working days timeframe for some of her reports and contact requests.
While an internal email had been sent to the CMO to arrange noise app access for the resident’s son on 27 November 2024, this was not actioned until 17 December 2024. Further, in an email of 10 January 2025, the landlord said it had listened to her recent recordings, noting the time of these and commenting they were not what it deemed to be unsociable hours. We note that it had previously informed the resident it had warned the neighbour about unreasonable levels of noise even outside of unsociable hours. Therefore, it is not clear why it was now using this as a measure, rather than focusing on whether the noise levels on the recordings were unreasonable.
The resident continued to log ASB reports in December 2024 and January 2025. The landlord assessed her recordings and decided that 2 met its threshold for noise. It again arranged to visit the neighbour and told the resident on 14 January 2025 that it would update her following the visit. It did not provide her with a date of the proposed visit or a timeframe for its update to her. As a result, the resident once again had to chase for updates. It informed her on 28 January 2025 that a visit had been arranged for 5 February 2025 and asked if it could visit her at the same time, which she agreed.
In this same email the landlord said the resident should bear in mind that, by going down this route, the neighbour would be aware the reports had come from her. It said it would understand if she did not want it to do this for that reason. However, the resident replied to say that the neighbour had visited her 5 days before its email to say she had heard from the landlord, was aware of her reports, and told her what the landlord was proposing to do. She provided details of the heated discussion that had followed between them. She asked how the neighbour could have known if the landlord had not already told her. She expressed her unhappiness at it having contacted the neighbour to discuss her (the resident) before the visit had even taken place.
The landlord did not reply to offer an explanation or clarification. The resident’s questions were valid. The evidence shows the landlord had contacted the neighbour on 23 January 2025 to advise her of further ASB reports. It has not provided us with the details of the discussion, but it is concerning that it warned the resident (and implied she could choose not to proceed to avoid the neighbour becoming aware) after it had already contacted the neighbour to arrange the visit and discussed a possible agenda. Its warning should have preceded the contact with the neighbour. Further, it may have been appropriate if the landlord had recommended that the neighbour should not contact the resident until it had confirmed with her if she would be willing to discuss the matter with her.
The landlord then failed to visit the resident on 5 February 2025, again requiring her to chase it. It then told her it had attempted to visit the neighbour but she had not been home. It is not clear why it did not still visit the resident while it was on the premises or at least update her that day about its failed attempt. There is no evidence of a follow up or action, such as a warning letter to the neighbour for her failure to attend the prearranged visit. In fact, it did not follow up with the neighbour until 26 February 2025 about her absence. This was after the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2 because of the ongoing lack of meaningful engagement and progress on her ASB reports.
The landlord said it would liaise with the council (and later the EHT) and keep the resident updated. We have seen no evidence of it doing that. Its ASB policy says it will set out clearly if it is taking the lead on a case. In either event, it is our expectation that it would keep the resident informed of any action, or lack thereof, being taken by it or a partner agency. That did not happen. We have seen no evidence of it making proactive contact with the council or the EHT.
Contrary to what the landlord said in its stage 2 response, we have seen no evidence of a GNC being issued. It sent a closure letter to the resident on 28 March 2025 saying it had received no new reports in the last month. This was despite the resident contacting it on 7 March 2025 to express her upset and frustration at its continued lack of engagement. She had highlighted that she had not heard from the CMO since 6 February 2025 and this was a recurring pattern.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to handle the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. After the initial risk assessment, we have seen no evidence of any others being done. We have not been provided with any action or communication plan and we have not seen evidence of mediation being offered or considered as an option.
There has been a repeated breakdown in communication, a lack of updates, and failure to provide timescales or manage the resident’s expectations. Other than visiting once to provide words of advice, it is not clear what action the landlord has taken to address the evidenced ASB with the neighbour. Its contact with the resident, and then progress on the case, has largely been reactive. The evidence does not show that the landlord took ownership of the situation with an aim to resolving it in a timely or appropriate manner. Overall, the handling of the resident’s reports was not in line with the landlord’s policy, industry good practice, or our expectations.
We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s actions. It has accepted some of its failings, apologised, and offered compensation; in keeping with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right. However, the compensation it has offered is not in line with our remedies guidance. The resident was open and honest about the impact the ASB was having on her health and work. She was clear about the communication and support she wanted from the landlord, but it did not respond appropriately. The situation remains unresolved, and the resident is no closer to a resolution now than she was in September 2024.
Bearing the above in mind, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £400 compensation for the distress, upset, and inconvenience caused by its failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the duration the reports remained outstanding, the poor communication, the lack of explanations and clear timeframes, and the ongoing impact on the resident.
The landlord is further ordered to contact the resident to gain an up-to-date position of her situation. It should then draft and share a time-specific plan of action for any identified issues with her. If it concludes no action is required, it should confirm this in writing with a clear explanation of its reasons. It is further ordered to review how it handled the resident’s case, paying particular attention to what it should have done differently and how it will ensure it learns from its mistakes, making changes to improve for the future.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2022, we published our Spotlight on complaints about noise. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. It set out timeframes; 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed).
The resident logged her complaint on 24 November 2024 and received the stage 1 response 10 working days later, within the policy timeframe. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was mindful of its policy provisions in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint on 11 February 2025 and received a response on 5 March 2025, 16 working days later. This was, again, in line with the landlord’s policy timescales and so reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £400 compensation, in addition to the £100 previously paid, for its handling of her ASB reports.
2. Contacted the resident to obtain an update on her situation.
3. Shared with the resident a time-specific plan of action for any identified issues. If it concludes that no action is required, it should confirm this in writing to the resident with a clear explanation of its reasons.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed this case and its procedures to ensure it effectively manages ASB reported to it to avoid similar issues. In carrying out the review, it should pay specific attention to how it communicated with the resident and how it ensures moving forward that cases are managed proactively and promptly. It should provide evidence to us that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.