We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Halton Housing (202416113)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416113

Halton Housing

30 April 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
    2. The resident’s repairs reports.
    3. The resident’s reports about a pest infestation and communal areas.
    4. The resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a maisonette in a block. The tenancy commenced in 2020.
  2. The resident previously reported rodent issues in late 2022. Following this, the local authority did pest control and the landlord filled entry points.
  3. In mid May 2024, the resident reported that pest control had attended for rodent issues and identified holes that needed filling. Following this, the landlord raised a repair to patch holes in the exterior wall.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord’s rehousing team around the same time. She said she was feeling pushed out of her home due to issues with a neighbour, which she had reported to the police, and asked if her banding could be changed. Following this, the rehousing team said she needed to report the issues to a housing officer and it would require a supporting letter from them to review her banding.
  5. On 4 June 2024, the resident complained. She asked if there was an update about an antisocial behaviour report she had made. She also told the landlord that a neighbour had abused her that day as she brought washing in from her balcony. The resident advised that a rat problem was still a huge issue in the area. She said she thought the property exteriors needed to be looked at for repairs. She also said that hedges needed to be removed to stop rats going into them. She said she wanted to be moved as she was getting nowhere due to her current banding.
  6. The landlord’s records note it subsequently spoke to both parties. It said it could not facilitate a move based on the argument. It also noted that the resident was liaising with the rehousing team about providing medical evidence to support a review of her banding.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. It said that staff had been asked to contact the resident about providing a video doorbell for her balcony. It said that staff had also been asked to reach out to the police to explore if there any further work it could do to support her and tackle any antisocial behaviour she experienced. It noted that the pest control was treating the rats and it had asked a surveyor to inspect for remedial work. It said it was unable to move residents unless there were exceptional circumstances such as a risk to life. It said it had asked the rehousing team to review the resident’s banding and they would contact her to discuss information required. It said it did not uphold the complaint as there was no service failure.
  8. The landlord’s records confirm its rehousing team liaised with the resident and advised her about providing information that outlined her and her child’s medical conditions and housing recommendations. The resident subsequently requested escalation of her complaint. She said that she did not consider the case resolved until issues, including repairs in the property, had been sorted.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 18 July 2024.
    1. It noted that the resident had raised antisocial behaviour and the inability to enjoy her home without being verbally attacked. It said it had interviewed her neighbour and provided 2 video doorbells which may help to gather evidence. It said that the resident would hopefully not experience further issues from her neighbour but advised her to provide further evidence to her housing officer if she did.
    2. It noted the resident raised a rat issue in the area and the pest control had treated the area and her home to try to eradicate the issue. It noted that the resident reported that rodents hid in overgrown bushes on the estate and said it had asked relevant staff to take action.
    3. It noted that the resident raised repairs for a hole, water bubbling up in the sink when the washing machine was in use, and a dripping tap in the kitchen. It said that all these repairs were on her account and she would receive appointments for them. It noted that the resident wanted to move. It said she needed to provide recent medical information for her and her child and it would review this once received.
    4. It said it did not uphold the complaint as its actions had been in line with its procedures.
  10. The landlord’s records and the resident’s account confirm the landlord attended for water bubbling up in the sink, the dripping tap and overgrown bushes within a week. The landlord’s records show it attended to fill holes on 6 August 2024. The evidence also shows that after the resident provided further medical evidence her banding was increased.
  11. The resident raised dissatisfaction about how long issues were ongoing and says they have impacted her mental health. She raised dissatisfaction that not enough maintenance was being done to foliage near the property to address rat issues. The resident has confirmed that these are now being maintained, some have been removed and the issue has decreased since this. She raised concerns that drainage issues will reoccur due to the age of the pipes. She says that the kitchen tap has been repaired multiple times but continues to break. She says that ASB has died down but she feels intimidated by her neighbour. She said that she wants to be compensated and moved.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within our authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts. Nor do we decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. The Ombudsman assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assesses whether it followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. Following the resident’s reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to her concerns and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies, such as contact the resident, discuss the case with the alleged perpetrator and other agencies, monitor the situation, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
  4. The evidence provided by the landlord about its ASB handling is not detailed and lacks information such as records of discussions with the resident and her neighbour. This is not entirely satisfactory and a recommendation is made about this. However, it is evident that the landlord took reasonable action in response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint.
  5. The resident reported issues with her neighbour in mid May 2024 to the landlord’s rehousing team and she was advised to report this to her housing officer. It is evident that after this, the landlord spoke to the resident and her neighbour by 6 June 2024, which is reasonably timely. It sought to liaise with the police. It provided 2 video doorbells to evidence any further ASB. It gave advice about reporting further incidents and suitable reassurance it would investigate if she experienced further ASB.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonably in accordance with its procedures and the resident’s account confirms that ASB has since been limited. This shows that the landlord took reasonable and effective action for the resident’s ASB reports in the timeframe of the complaint. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect. If the resident has experienced any further ASB she has the option to report this to the landlord for it to consider appropriate action.

The resident’s repairs reports

  1. It is not evident that the resident brought any repairs to the landlord’s attention until her 24 June 2024 complaint escalation. Following this, an operative visited around 4 July 2024 and raised repairs for water bubbling in the sink when the washing machine was used, and a kitchen tap that dripped and was coming away.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed they were raised and that the resident would receive appointments for them. It then attended the repairs on 22 July 2024 and again on 28 August 2024, after they were re-raised on 13 August 2024. The landlord’s records and the resident’s account confirm it cleared a blocked stack and repaired the tap.
  3. The resident confirms the sink issue was resolved in late 2024 but raises wider concerns about the condition of the drains on her estate. The resident raises dissatisfaction that the kitchen tap issue has recurred despite it having been replaced multiple times.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s handling and response about the repairs in the timeframe of the complaint was appropriate. It attended within its 20-working day timeframe for non-emergency repairs, after they were raised on 4 July and 13 August 2024. Its confirmation in its complaint response, that the repairs had been raised, was reasonable given repairs were not raised in the original complaint and the last report for relevant issues (the kitchen tap) was over a year before. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.
  5. The Ombudsman understands the resident raises dissatisfaction with the condition of the drains on her estate and that the kitchen tap issue has recurred despite it having been replaced multiple times. The wider concerns with drains did not form part of the original complaint and she has the option to raise this issue to the landlord. The resident also has the option to report the kitchen tap if issues have arisen with this again, however a recommendation is made about this.

The resident’s reports about a pest infestation and communal areas

  1. The resident is understood to have arranged for the local authority pest control to attend for rodent issues in her property. In mid May 2024, she reported that they had identified holes that needed filling, and in June and July 2024 she said overgrown hedges and bushes also needed to be cut, which is understood to have been based on feedback by the pest control.
  2. The landlord raised a repair in May 2024 for a bricklayer to fill holes in the exterior wall and its complaint responses confirmed it would inspect and arrange an appointment for this. The resident says the landlord filled holes inside her property in mid July 2024 and its records show it subsequently repaired the exterior wall on 6 August 2024. The landlord raised a repair on 5 July 2024 for overgrown bushes. Its stage 2 response confirmed it was taking action for these and it is evident bushes were cut back on 22 July 2024. However, the resident raises concerns that issues will return in a couple of years.
  3. The internal and external proofing seem to have been raised as planned repairs with timeframes of 54 working days and neither were done within the 20-working day timeframe of a non-emergency repair. This could have been more appropriate for pest entry repairs, but it is not evident that the length of time the proofing took adversely impacted the situation with pests in the resident’s home. The landlord did proofing in a reasonable and relatively timely manner in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about overgrowth in its stage 1 response. It also did not raise a request to cut this back until a month after her complaint and until after she had escalated it. This is not entirely satisfactory. However, the landlord’s subsequent action to arrange for overgrowth to be cut back reasonably put this right. The resident confirms there has been maintenance and removal of foliage and issues have decreased since this.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about pests was reasonable, as it did proofing and communal maintenance in a generally timely manner and it is not evident that any detriment was caused by the time these took. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.
  6. The resident has concerns about issues returning. The Ombudsman notes that permanent prevention of pests entering properties is a challenge, and our main focus is on how a landlord responds when such issues occur. She has the option to report any further pest concerns to the landlord, however a recommendation is made about this.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

  1. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make definitive decisions about whether a tenant should be rehoused. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord appropriately responded within the timeframe of the complaint.
  2. The evidence shows that after an issue with a neighbour, the resident asked the landlord to review her banding and move her in mid May 2024 and in her June 2024 complaint. The landlord told the resident that it could not move her on that ground, but it subsequently liaised with her to obtain medical evidence to review and increase her banding.
  3. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and her desire for the landlord to move her and her child from their current environment. However, its response that it would not move her was reasonable on the evidence seen. The landlord’s policies show it usually moves residents where major repairs are required or there are exceptional individual circumstances. It is not evident that the ASB, repairs or pest issues here met such criteria.
  4. The landlord can review the resident’s banding for transfer via the local housing allocation scheme, based on supporting evidence she is able to provide such as medical letters. The landlord shows it liaised with the resident to do so in a reasonable way. It considered information she provided and provided advice about what further evidence it needed, including in its complaint response. It responded to her in a timely way and sought to manage her expectations about when to expect replies to queries. This led to the resident providing evidence that resulted in it increasing her banding priority within a month or so of its stage 2 response.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move was reasonable, as its decision not to move her was in line with its policies and it appropriately liaised with her to review and increase her banding. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation and communal areas.
    4. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it keeps and supplies sufficient records about its handling of ASB reports.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review the issues with kitchen tap, including their frequency, and consider appropriate action for a lasting resolution.
  3. The landlord is recommended to review the recent frequency of reported pest issues at the resident’s estate, and review if it is doing all it can in respect to structural proofing and maintenance of surrounding foliage.