Housing For Women (202518973)

Decision
Case ID	202518973
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Housing For Women
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

1. The landlord provides housing for women and gender-specific support services. The landlord is aware the resident has diagnosed mental health conditions. The resident complained that the landlord had not removed scaffolding from outside her building and had not completed the required checks on a new neighbour. The new neighbour was causing antisocial behaviour (ASB).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the scaffolding.
   2. Concerns about the letting of a neighbouring property and ASB.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the scaffolding.
   2. Associated complaint.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the letting of a neighbouring property and ASB.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, we found that the landlord:

Concerns about the scaffolding

1. Failed to proactively communicate with the resident about the major works. Failed to investigate the resident’s concerns that members of the public were climbing on the scaffolding.

Concerns about the letting of a neighbouring property and ASB

2. Responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns by explaining it could not discuss another resident’s tenancy. Said it would investigate the neighbour’s conduct in line with its ASB policy.

Complaint handling

3. Failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Failed to recognise any complaint handling failures.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the scaffolding. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 17 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: it was meant to remove the scaffolding in May 2025 but it was still there she was concerned about security issues whilst the scaffolding remained up her mobile signal did not work due to the scaffolding her electricity costs had gone up because she had to leave her blinds down and use her lights whilst the scaffolding was up she was concerned about the conduct of a new resident and their visitors
25 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
4 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said: the major works had taken longer than expected it would remove the scaffolding within 2 weeks the decision to leave lights on due to a resident’s anxiety was a personal choice. It would not compensate for this it had not received any reports the scaffolding had affected the mobile phone signals it was a breach of confidentiality to discuss the neighbour’s tenancy the resident should report any criminal incidents to the police it had passed the resident’s concerns about her neighbour to its housing team it apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused
8 July 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
22 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said: the scaffolding would only remain in place for the time needed to complete the works, it outlined why the works had taken longer it was unfortunate the scaffolding had caused less light into the building, the works were essential and it was unable to mitigate this it apologised if the scaffolding had affected the resident’s wi-fi connection it would consider reimbursing the resident if she sent in the cost of her wi-fi for the period the scaffolding was in place it was dealing with the reports of ASB in accordance with its policy
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to pay compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the scaffolding.
Finding	Maladministration

6. We understand the scaffolding was in place whilst the landlord completed major works to the building and the roof. The resident complained the landlord left the scaffolding up too long. She said this affected her because operatives, and members of the public, would climb onto the scaffolding and stare into her flat. This caused her to feel unsafe.
7. We have not seen the landlord’s major or planned works policy or know if one exists. We understand that timescales for planned works can be changeable based on several factors including such things as contractor availability and scope of work required. Therefore, it would be reasonable that a landlord provides an estimated timeframe of when it would start the works and provide regular updates on progress to residents to ensure it keeps them informed.
8. The landlord’s contractor put up a notice outside the building about the external refurbishment works. The notice explained the works would begin on 12 February 2025 and it expected to complete the works by mid–June 2025.
9. The landlord updated the resident that the works had taken longer than expected in June 2025. This was following contact from the resident. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied the landlord proactively kept the resident updated when the timescale for completing the works changed.
10. The landlord said it had not received any previous reports of members of the public gaining access to the scaffolding. It said the contractors raised the access ladders to the scaffolding each evening so access should not be possible. It referred to there being an alarm on the scaffolding. It said it had tested the alarm and found it to be in working order. It asked the resident to let it know if the contractors did not move the ladders and when members of the public were climbing on the scaffolding.
11. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said the alarm had been in place for the duration of the works. The alarm kept a record of any triggers and apparent cause of the trigger. It said it could access these records if needed. It encouraged the resident to contact the police if she felt threatened. The resident had reported someone had been on the scaffolding on 12 June 2025. She reported this happened again the week before she escalated her complaint, which would have been around the end of June 2025. The landlord should have spoken to the contractors and investigated if the reported incidents had activated the alarm. This did not happen.
12. The resident said she had to use more electricity whilst the scaffolding was up. This was because she had to keep her blinds closed to stop people (including operatives) looking into her flat. The landlord accepted the scaffolding may have affected the light in the property. However, it needed the scaffolding to complete essential repairs to the building. The lessened light was something it was unable to mitigate.
13. The landlord misconstrued what the resident said here. She did not say the scaffolding was affecting her light. She said she had to keep her blinds closed because people including operatives were looking into her flat. Having to keep the blinds closed was affecting her light and she was spending more on electricity as a result.
14. The resident said the scaffolding affected her mobile phone signal. This affected her financially because she was unable to apply for shifts at work. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the cost of her wi-fi service so that it could consider if it needed to compensate for this. The resident did not send the information to the landlord.    
15. In summary, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for the delay in removing the scaffolding. It explained the reason for the delay, which had been out of its control. It updated the resident on the additional works it needed to complete. It explained there were systems in place to ensure the scaffolding was secure. However, as outlined above, its communication was poor. It failed to keep the resident updated when it extended the works. It also failed to fully investigate the resident’s reports of members of the public climbing onto the scaffolding. The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress. The resident’s health conditions meant she worried about what might happen. The landlord did not do enough to reassure her.
16. Due to the poor communication and failure to fully investigate the resident’s concerns there was maladministration. Because of the effect this had on the resident, we’ve ordered the landlord to pay £500 compensation. This follows our guidance for situations where the landlord has attempted to put things right but has not addressed the detriment to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the letting of a neighbouring property and ASB.
Finding	No maladministration

17. The resident complained that the landlord had not fully investigated a new neighbour’s background before letting the property. She said the landlord had put her and other residents at risk by letting the neighbour move in. She believed this because the theft of post and ASB started soon after the neighbour moved in.
18. We cannot investigate what background checks the landlord completed in relation to the neighbour’s tenancy. This is because we do not have the neighbour’s permission to do so. It would be a breach of data protection rules. However, we can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether its response was reasonable.
19. The resident first raised her concerns about the neighbour’s conduct within her initial complaint on 13 June 2025. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will not deal with reports of ASB via its complaint policy, unless residents are unhappy with its response to these.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained it could not discuss the neighbour’s tenancy. It said this would be a breach of confidentiality. It advised the resident to report any concerns about criminal activity to the police. It would assist with any investigation the police conducted. It said it had passed the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s conduct to the housing team. This was in line with its policy.
21. In July 2025 the resident raised her concerns about the neighbour again. She said the police had told her the neighbour had a criminal record. She said the landlord should not have given the neighbour a property. On 14 July 2025 the landlord reiterated that it had followed its letting process when it had signed the neighbour up to the property. It agreed to investigate the letting again. It confirmed it had spoken to most residents in the building and given advice about evidence gathering. It said it would visit the neighbour to discuss the reported behaviour.
22. At stage 2 the landlord said it would deal with the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. It would continue to gather evidence to build a case. It would take further action if there was sufficient evidence.
23. The evidence supports that the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because it explained the reasons it could not discuss the neighbour’s tenancy. It agreed to deal with the reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. Based on this, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the letting of a neighbouring property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaint policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
    2. The resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team on 13 June 2025. This was a dissatisfaction with the service she had received. The landlord failed to recognise this as a complaint. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
    3. At stage 1, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 20 June 2025. It should have sent its stage 1 response no later than 4 July 2025 (15 working days in total). It delayed acknowledging the complaint by 4 working days. (20 June 2025 to 25 June 2025). This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
    4. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on time.
    5. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
    6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 11 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. Therefore, although the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation, it sent the stage 2 complaint response on time. 
    7. The landlord failed to acknowledge any complaint handling failures in its responses
25. Due to the delay at stage 1, failure to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2, and not recognising any complaint handling failures, there was maladministration. The delays caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. To reflect this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

26. The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. Landlords should review complaints to identify any service improvements it can make.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord did not evidence it had updated residents about the major works.

Communication

28. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates in relation to the concerns about the neighbour and her complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to some contacts, its communication and updates could have been better. The landlord should explore ways to keep residents updated whilst major works are ongoing.