Hyde Housing Association Limited (202506029)

Decision
Case ID	202506029
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a building comprising 2 flats. She reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbouring tenant. She then complained that the landlord did not provide sufficient support and its action was delayed. She sought compensation and assistance with rehousing. The landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication in its handling of her reports, said enforcement action had been taken, offered compensation, and said the rehousing and support options it offered were in line with its policies.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The residents request to be rehoused.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents request to be rehoused.
   3. Service failure in the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord took a range of actions in line with its ASB policy, acknowledged shortcomings in case progression and communication in 2024, and offered reasonable and proportionate remedies in line with its policy and our guidance.

Rehousing

5. The landlord progressed rehousing in a timely and reasonable way, explaining its limitations, working with the local authority, supporting the resident, and acting in line with its policies.

The complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed response at stage 2 or offer any remedy.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for its handling of the 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.	No later than 28 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not yet done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the £750 compensation it offered during its internal complaints process. The finding of reasonable redress is partly based on it doing so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 February 2025	After initially reporting ASB to the landlord the resident complained to it that it had not provided sufficient support or take effective action. She requested compensation and assistance with rehousing.
6 March 2025	In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there were delays in responding to her ASB reports and that its communication was poor. It confirmed it was serving a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) against the neighbour. It apologised and offered £750 compensation. It also identified learning from the complaint and said it would explore housing referral options and possible assistance with moving costs.
13 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s response did not show an understanding of the impact the ASB had on her. She again requested assistance with rehousing, additional door security measures, confirmation of help with moving costs, a safety plan following the service of the NOSP, and increased compensation to reflect the impact on her.
25 April 2025	In its final response, the landlord upheld its earlier position and said the resident did not meet the criteria for a priority move. It provided information about tenancy support services and said it could consider help with moving costs once these were confirmed. The landlord said it had repaired a lock after reports that the front door would not open or close. It said it could not find a report that the front door had been damaged by forced entry but said it would inspect it. The landlord declined to increase the compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord’s responses did not reflect the full impact of the ASB, that its actions had been ineffective, and that the relocation options offered were unclear or unrealistic. She sought increased compensation and support with rehousing.

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	Antisocial behaviour
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident said in her complaint to both the landlord and us that the ASB had been taking place over several years. She complained to the landlord about the issue in February 2025.
8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Because of that this investigation centres on events in the months leading up to the complaint to the landlord but does not consider earlier periods.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s ASB policy is risk‑based and requires proportionate, evidence‑led action informed by risk and vulnerability assessments. It provides for regular case reviews, joint working with partner agencies, and escalation where informal action is ineffective. The policy allows for legal action, including a notice of seeking possession (NOSP), where non‑legal measures have failed. Residents should be kept informed through agreed case reviews held at least every 4 weeks.
10. The resident complained in February 2025 about ASB from a neighbouring property. She reported abusive behaviour, aggression, theft, and invasion of privacy, which she said escalated over time and caused her to feel unsafe. She complained that the landlord’s response was slow, inconsistent, and poorly communicated, and requested compensation.
11. In its stage 1 response dated 6 March 2025, the landlord said it opened an ASB case in September 2023. It reported attempts to contact the resident in October 2023 and said a 7‑day case‑closure warning letter was issued when no response was received, although reports later continued. It said it attempted visits to the neighbour in November and December 2023, made contact in January 2024, and issued a warning letter to the perpetrator in May 2024. It said partner agencies were involved from August 2024. The landlord confirmed the case was allocated to a new ASB officer in January 2025 and that a NOSP would be served in early March 2025. It acknowledged delays and poor communication between January and August 2024, apologised, and offered £750 compensation for distress, inconvenience, and service shortcomings.
12. The landlord’s records are clear and comprehensive andbroadly support this account. They show an ASB case was opened in September 2023, and the risk was assessed as medium. Warning letters were issued in October 2023 and May 2024, and there were repeated attempts to contact or visit the neighbour during late 2023 and again in 2024. However, despite continued reports between January and August 2024, there is little evidence of active case progression during this period. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this as a failing.
13. By March 2024, the landlord had identified enforcement action, including service of a NOSP, as the appropriate next step. This action did not proceed at that stage. An internal email dated 27 October 2024 recorded that a case review was overdue and that agreed actions, including service of the NOSP, had not been completed. The NOSP was eventually served on 18 March 2025, around 12 months after it was first identified as necessary. Legal action can be complex and time‑consuming. However, in its response to the resident, the landlord accepted that the delay was due to shortcomings in how it progressed the case, rather than the inherent length of the legal process.
14. The resident escalated her complaint, stating that the landlord had not sufficiently recognised the seriousness of the ASB or its impact on her wellbeing. She said enforcement action was delayed, she continued to feel unsafe, and the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the impact on her.
15. In its stage 2 response issued in April 2025, the landlord reiterated its acknowledgement of delays and communication failures between January and August 2024. It said these issues were addressed through improved case management and allocation of a new ASB officer. It confirmed the NOSP was served on 18 March 2025 and that enforcement action progressed during early 2025. It decided not to increase the compensation offered. Possession was later granted in September 2025, with eviction in October 2025.
16. Overall, the landlord’s approach included a range of actions consistent with its ASB policy, such as issuing warnings, attempting engagement with the neighbour, working with partner agencies, reallocating the case, and ultimately pursuing legal enforcement. There were clear shortcomings in case progression and communication between January and August 2024. The landlord acknowledged this, apologised, and showed learning by taking corrective action to improving case management and progressing enforcement thereafter. In addition, it explored alternative options, including rehousing, in line with the resident’s preferences.
17. These actions, together, with the landlord’s apologies and £750 compensation, were proportionate, reasonable, and in line with its policy and our guidance for failures of this nature and duration.

Complaint	Rehousing
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

18. The evidence shows that the local council was responsible for allocation decisions about some of the landlord’s properties, particularly in the areas the resident preferred to move to. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in that capacity, we therefore have no power to investigate the council’s rehousing decisions. The resident may be able to raise these matters with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
19. However, the landlord is responsible for rehousing applications in areas where its properties are not subject to the council’s nomination. This investigation focuses on that element of the complaint.

What we have investigated

20. The resident complained that the landlord delayed progressing a management transfer and did not provide appropriate assistance.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it approved a management move application in September 2024 and made an offer in December 2024, which the resident declined due to its location. It explained that rehousing in the resident’s preferred areas was unlikely because of limited availability and the council was responsible for rehousing decisions for properties in those locations. It said it had and would support her to bid through choice‑based lettings.
22. The resident escalated her complaint, stating that rehousing support was delayed and unclear. She asked for support with a “reciprocal move”, a supporting letter for housing applications, and information on possible financial assistance.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that the management move application had been approved and she had declined the offer. It said the resident did not meet the criteria for a reciprocal or priority move. It also said it continued to support her in early 2025 by liaising with the council and providing housing application guidance. It also said it had referred the case to its charitable arm to consider discretionary financial assistance once rehousing was confirmed.
24. The landlord’s allocation and letting policy states that reciprocal and priority moves are limited to exceptional circumstances and subject to availability, and that management moves may be considered where thresholds are not met.In this case, the landlord assessed the resident’s circumstancesand progressed a management move alongside advice on other rehousing options.
25. The resident requested rehousing on 5 September 2024. The landlord met her on 26 September 2024 and submitted a management move application on 4 October 2024. She declined an offer in December 2024. From February 2025, the landlord worked with the council to support her housing application.
26. On 28 February 2025, the council advised that a reciprocal move did not meet the urgent threshold (this appeared to be because the requested area was subject to its nomination rights), which the landlord relayed on 3 March 2025. Between May and September 2025, the resident continued to pursue rehousing and declined or cancelled further offers due to suitability and anti‑social behaviour concerns. The landlord confirmed her approval for a management move remained open and agreed to make one further offer.
27. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took timely and reasonable steps to consider and progress rehousing once the resident requested to move. It submitted and secured approval for a management move application, made an offer of alternative accommodation, explained the limitations affecting rehousing in the resident’s preferred areas, and engaged with the council to support her housing applications. While the resident remained dissatisfied with the suitability and availability of the options offered, the landlord did not delay or refuse rehousing assistance and acted in line with its policies and procedures.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

28. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 13 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2025, which was 16 working days later. This exceeded the landlord’s stage 1 timescale by 1 working day.
30. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2025. As she did not receive an acknowledgement or response, she resent the escalation on 21 March 2025 and contacted the landlord by telephone on 25 March 2025 to report that her complaints did not appear to be being received. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 31 March 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 25 April 2025. This was 44 working days after 21 March 2025 (the date the landlord’s records confirm receipt of the escalation). This exceeded the landlord’s stage 2 timescale by 19 working days.
31. The delay of 1 working day at stage 1 was minor and there is no evidence that it had a material impact on the resident. However, at stage 2, the landlord did not advise the resident that an extension was required, did not provide an explanation for the delay, and did not acknowledge the delayed response or offer a remedy. This was not reasonable and did not fully comply with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.

Learning

Communication

32. The landlord identified areas where it could have communicated more effectively with the resident during the ASB case management and has already identified learning in this regard. As it seeks to improve its service, it should consider the Ombudsman’s Learning from: Severe Maladministration report, which highlights learning in relation to ASB handling, including risk assessments, action plans, hate crime, and multi‑agency cooperation, to support more effective management of ASB cases in future.