Home Group Limited (202511423)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour spanning over 3 years. The landlord’s records show that the resident lives with health conditions including depression and anxiety.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to open an ASB case in September 2024 when evidence was provided which it later acknowledged and gave compensation for. Further ASB reports were responded to in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
5. There was a short delay in the landlord issuing its final complaint response which did not amount to any service failure.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident told us that her health had worsened because of the ASB. We can consider the effect of the situation and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot determine liability for the impact on health. These matters are more appropriate for an insurance claim or court.
7. The resident told us that she experienced 3 years of ASB by her neighbour. We previously completed an investigation about this under the reference 202347850. This investigation covered events up to 25 March 2024. This investigation will focus on events after that date and starting from September 2024, when we have evidence of further reports being made. This investigation will focus on the reports of the resident’s neighbour being verbally abusive towards her, as this was the subject of the complaint.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy (the policy) says that investigations into ASB deliberately targeted at an individual will be initiated within one day of receiving an ASB report. The landlord acknowledged that the resident provided evidence in September and October 2024. There is no evidence that these reports were addressed until January 2025. In its final response, the landlord recognised this delay and offered compensation.
9. The landlord commenced its investigations into to the resident’s January and April 2025 ASB reports within one working day. These actions were appropriate as they complied with the policy to begin investigations within one day.
10. The policy also required the landlord to complete a risk assessment to identify vulnerabilities and to create an action plan reflecting the resident’s needs and preferences. The landlord produced risk assessments noting that the resident felt isolated and had mental health conditions reportedly exacerbated by the ASB. The absence of dates on the risk assessments meant it was unclear whether these were completed promptly and before the action plans. The landlord also considered the resident’s health on 6 February 2025, when it signposted the resident to her GP and local crisis support team.
11. The landlord followed its policy of taking swift action by producing action plans on 21 January 2025 and 11 April 2025, within a day of receiving the resident’s ASB reports, and completed agreed tasks within a week. Actions included speaking to all parties involved and the resident sending in additional evidence if it became available.
12. The policy describes an incremental approach to ASB, including giving warnings. It emphasises that engaging in ASB can result in legal action and potential eviction. Cases of serious or immediate risk require more urgent action. When the resident reported further ASB in April 2025, the landlord visited the neighbour within 2 days, instructing them not to engage with the resident. When ASB was reported in July 2025, within 2 working days the landlord issued a verbal warning to the neighbour about breaching the tenancy agreement and the risk of legal action if such behaviour continued. Given that reports were intermittent and no evidence indicated a serious or immediate risk, the landlord’s actions were appropriate as they aligned with its policy.
13. The policy requires the landlord to work with partner agencies, including the police. In April 2025 the landlord confirmed regular engagement with the police. The police advised that it had not taken any action in April 2025 because the resident did not engage and provide witness statements. For the July 2025 ASB report, the police concluded there was no evidence of ASB at that time. Based on this information, it was reasonable that the landlord did not escalate the case.
14. The resident raised concerns about 2 individual team members’ handling of the ASB reports. On both occasions, the landlord engaged with the team members, reviewed their approaches and responded to the resident within one week of the concerns being raised. It confirmed that it was satisfied that correct processes were followed and provided additional training for one team member. This was a reasonable response which appropriately investigated and addressed the resident’s concerns.
15. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not respond to evidence she submitted in February 2025. On 5 February 2025 the landlord acknowledged her concerns and confirmed the police were handling the matter as the reported incidents occurred away from the property. The landlord offered to investigate any further concerns. There was no evidence of additional evidence being submitted. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord took no further action at that time.
16. The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that, although the incidents reported in 2024 were police matters, it should have opened an ASB case so it could accurately record any further incidents. The landlord apologised for this and gave £75 compensation for its “poor support and communication”. It confirmed it had fed this back as learning to its team. It said that it had engaged with the neighbour and the police about the incidents and no further incidents had since been reported.
17. The initial delay in addressing ASB reports was a failing, which the landlord appropriately recognised and compensated for. Further reports were handled promptly and in accordance with policy. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

18. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days.
19. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within the agreed timeframes. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within the agreed timeframes and issued its final response 3 days late. The delay was short and had no significant impact on the outcome for the resident.
20. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about ASB and the team member who dealt with the case.
21. Therefore no maladministration has been found. The 3 day delay, however, should have been acknowledged. We referenced this in the learning section of this report.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord has not provided evidence of all direct communications with the police. The dates of the risk assessments were also not apparent. More accurate record keeping can help the landlord, its residents and organisations such as us that processes have been properly adhered to.

Communication

23. The landlord did not inform the resident of the short delay in issuing the final complaint response. The delay had no significant impact, but the landlord should have maintained communication and kept the resident updated on timescales.

Learning

24. It was positive that the landlord completed additional ASB training for a team member and took learning from the complaint, which it fed back to team members.