Hyde Housing Association Limited (202534856)

Decision
Case ID	202534856
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	25 June 2026

Background

1. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours (neighbour A and neighbour B). These neighbours are both tenants of the landlord. Allegations of ASB were also made against the resident. The landlord investigated all the reports of ASB. The resident has continued to submit reports of ASB and of fumes entering her flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours and smells entering her property.
   2. Allegations of ASB made against the resident by a neighbour.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours and smells entering her property.
   2. Allegations of ASB made against the resident by a neighbour.
   3. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours and smells entering her property

4. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about ASB from a neighbour in line with its policy and procedures. Its overall investigation was proportionate, and its communication was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances.

Handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident by a neighbour

5. The landlord investigated the allegations of ASB made against the resident in line with its policy and procedures. Its response was proportionate, and its communication was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

7. 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

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

Our recommendations
The landlord’s repairs team might consider inspecting the building and sealing any gaps that may be allowing fumes to enter the resident’s flat. We would also encourage it to share any results with the resident and the local environmental health team. This would be subject to the resident contacting her local environmental health team to inspect the air quality in her flat.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 November 2025	The resident asked us to assist her in raising a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. The resident said: Neighbour A was involved in drug related activity which caused smoke fumes to enter her property. The resident said the smoke also included smells of cannabis and other illegal substances. Neighbour B was frequently coughing and retching on their own balcony. She believed this was connected to them using illegal drugs in their flat. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to allegations made against her by a neighbour about ASB. The landlord had not considered her health when investigating the ASB, including the fumes and the distress caused to her.
11 November 2025	We asked the landlord to raise the resident’s formal complaint.
13 November 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
27 November 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response that said it had investigated her reports of ASB. The landlord said that: Between July 2025 and September 2025, neighbour B had been ill and was recovering from COVID-19. It advised the resident to keep a diary log, and it would continue to assess her reports of ASB. It later assessed the resident’s diary entries and its own findings. It concluded that neighbour B’s behaviour was most likely due to their illness. It found no evidence of harassment and said the reports did not reach the threshold for ASB. Between October 2025 and November 2025, its team had carried out unannounced visits to the building and spoken with her neighbours. It identified no evidence of any illegal activity, including drug use or related nuisance. There was no evidence of drug related smells in the building. The resident’s concerns about smoke and fumes entering her flat did not automatically categorise it as ASB. The resident’s reports had been assessed from July 2025 to November 2025. The resident’s further comments did not constitute fresh evidence or new allegations and so it would not reopen the ASB case. It appreciated the resident’s concerns about her health and encouraged her to contact her GP. It would continue to assess the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. The landlord said it had assessed a counter allegation of ASB against the resident. It could not disclose any third party information about this report as it did not have the parties consent.
3 December 2025	The resident told us the landlord had not responded to her request to escalate the complaint. The resident said the landlord had delayed in addressing her reports of ASB and had failed to consider: Her vulnerabilities including her anxiety, lack of sleep, and ill health at being exposed to persistent chemical fumes in her flat. The substantial new and significant evidence of ASB. This included witnesses to cannabis smoke in communal areas, and odours consistent with the production of illegal drugs. Late night food deliveries to the building linked to drug activity. Corroboration from neighbours about her reports. Testing or monitoring the air quality or working with the local environmental health team. That smoke and other fumes entering her flat could be constituted as a statutory nuisance. The harassment and intimidation from her neighbours who were spreading rumours, banging on walls, and made her feel unsafe.   We asked the landlord to send the resident its final complaint response.
19 December 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response that said it had reviewed information over several of the resident’s ASB cases. It had also considered professional observations, police input, contractor’s reports, and site inspections. The additional material provided did not amount to independent verifiable evidence including that: Most witnesses did not engage, remained anonymous, or could not confirm the source or nature of the odours impacting her flat. 1 contractor noted an unclear smell but could not link it to drugs. The resident’s reports of smells linked to the production of illegal drugs were an assertion and not professional evidence. It had investigated the pattens of behaviour of her neighbours and her claims of drug related ASB were not substantiated.   The landlord summarised its actions taken to investigate the resident’s reports over the previous 2 years. This included that it had carried out: At least 14 site visits, some of which were unannounced at different times of the day. Joint visits with the police, and walkabouts of communal areas. Internal inspections of her neighbour’s flats, and of the vents between the flats. An independent assessment of the allegations made against the resident.   The landlord was satisfied its response had been proportionate over an extensive period. This included it had collated 220 documents. It was satisfied with its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.   The landlord said it assessed the allegations of ASB against the resident separately. The landlord found no evidence that required it to take any enforcement action in respect of this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had failed to escalate her concerns beyond ASB, assess air risk transfer, and apply safeguarding considerations. She wanted the landlord to take the appropriate action to address these concerns which were ongoing.

 

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 reports of ASB from her neighbours and smells entering her property.
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

9. We understand that the situation involving the resident’s neighbours has caused the resident significant distress. It is important to be aware that it is outside our role to establish whether her neighbours have committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies and industry best practice.
10. The resident told us the ASB and fumes permeating the property affected her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. The resident has reported issues about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB over many years. We have previously investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between late 2023 and October 2024.

What we have investigated

12. The resident raised her most recent formal complaint about this issue in November 2025. In the interest of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, and what we have already investigated, this investigation is focused on events occurring from the resident’s report in July 2025 (which was within 12 months of the resident’s formal complaint), until the landlord’s final complaint response, on 19 December 2025.
13. In July 2025, the resident reported neighbour B was taking drugs, choking, and vomiting them up on the balcony. She said they did this several times per day from the early hours of the morning. She was unable to leave her windows open as it made her feel sick. She had attempted to speak to neighbour B directly about this, but they had ignored her.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy says it aims to deal with ASB in a proportionate manner. It will take a customer focussed approach, working with all parties. The landlord’s initial intervention will aim to stop the behaviour being reported. It also says that not all behaviour that impacts a resident can be deemed as ASB.
15. The landlord completed a risk assessment and encouraged the resident to submit incidents of drug related activity to the police. This is because the police are the lead agency on criminal matters, including drug related ASB. The police are best placed to deal with drug related activity as they have different powers to investigate these issues.
16. The landlord wrote to neighbour B about what the resident had reported. It also spoke with them to identify if they suffered with any underlying health issues. Neighbour B said they had been unwell and were recovering from a COVID-19 related illness. They apologised that their behaviour had impacted other residents in the building.
17. We acknowledge the resident disagreed that neighbour B’s behaviour had been due to an illness. However, the landlord acted proportionately by investigating her reports and it would be reasonable in that circumstance for the landlord to accept neighbour B was ill. It was right that the landlord communicated its findings with the resident in a timely manner.
18. The resident also said she wanted the landlord to investigate urine in the communal lift. The landlord took reasonable steps to seek witnesses and CCTV. The landlord did not find any evidence which meant it was unable to take any further action over this incident.
19. It was positive the landlord asked the resident if she was still having issues with neighbour B in August 2025. The resident responded that her neighbour had been quiet since the landlord’s intervention.
20. The landlord encouraged her to submit diary logs to record any further incidents. This is recognised as industry best practice in gathering evidence in ASB cases.
21. Between September 2025 and October 2025, the resident:
    1. Submitted intermittent reports of neighbour B coughing and retching on the balcony.
    2. Reported that neighbour A had been repeatedly banging on the walls. They had also made false claims, caused disturbances, and tried to intimidate her.
    3. Asked it to investigate the fumes entering her flat that were impacting her health.
22. On 22 October 2025, the landlord advised the resident it had closed its ASB case in respect of neighbour B. The landlord’s investigation was fair and proportionate because it took initial steps to try and resolve the resident’s issue. The landlord says it will aim to do this in the first instance in its ASB policy.
23. The landlord was also right to manage the resident’s expectations in these circumstances. It communicated that neighbour B’s activity was most likely due to ill health and not intentional harassment. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable to conclude the case did not meet the threshold for ASB. It then closed the resident’s ASB case against neighbour B.
24. The resident said the fumes entering her flat included smoke, cannabis, as well as other drug related smells. In late October 2025, the landlord visited the resident’s building unannounced to investigate. It spoke with residents and inspected neighbour A’s flat. The landlord said its investigation found no evidence of drug related activity. It also found no evidence of fumes within the building as described by the resident.
25. Theoretically it is possible for smoking to have such an impact it would cause a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that smoke (This does not apply to the smell of smoke) from a premises could be a statutory nuisance if it:
    1. Unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home.
    2. Injures health or is likely to injure health.
26. The landlord was right to encourage the resident to contact her local environmental health team about the fumes entering her flat. This is because this agency would have been the most appropriate to investigate and determine if the levels of fumes and air quality met the threshold for a statutory nuisance.
27. On 19 December 2025, the landlord sent the resident its final response to her complaint. The landlord set out its investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB dating back to November 2023. This included that it:
    1. Assessed the resident’s reports.
    2. Spoke with her neighbours to seek corroborative evidence.
    3. Interviewed both of the alleged perpetrators and inspected their flats.
    4. Carried out unannounced visits, walk abouts, and joint visits with the local police.
    5. Inspected the vents between the flats.
    6. Referred the resident to contact her local environmental health team.
    7. Signposted the resident to her GP when she said it was impacting her health.
28. The landlord said its investigation found no evidence to support the resident’s reports of drug related activity by neighbours A and B. Without evidence the landlord would be unable to consider taking any enforcement action against the resident’s neighbours.
29. We understand the resident does not agree with the landlord’s findings. She also alleged the landlord’s staff had been friends or in a relationship with one of her neighbours. It would not be appropriate for the members of the landlord’s staff to investigate ASB cases involving residents they know in a personal capacity. This would be a conflict of interest. However, we have not seen any evidence to support what the resident has alleged.
30. The landlord’s overall response and level of investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB was proportionate and in line with its ASB policy. Its communication was also reasonable given regard to all the circumstances.
31. The resident has told us she is still experiencing fumes within her flat. We recommend the landlord continues to engage with the resident to resolve this issue. It may wish to inspect the building and seal any gaps that may be allowing fumes into the resident’s flat.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident by a neighbour.
Finding	No maladministration

32. On 14 August 2025, the landlord received a counter allegation the resident had harassed a neighbour and had barged into them on the communal staircase.
33. The landlord acted fairly by allocating a different ASB case officer from the member of staff investigating the resident’s reports of ASB. This was to ensure its investigation remained separate. The landlord’s decision was appropriate so its investigation into the allegations were treated fairly and independently.
34. The landlord was right to inform the resident of the allegations made against her. This ensured the resident had a right of reply to the allegations made against her.
35. The landlord said it had been unable to share details of the third party information involved in this case. This was because the third party had not given their consent for it to share their information. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it must carry out its functions in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.
36. The landlord told the resident it was not taking any enforcement action against the resident over the allegations made against her. Its overall response and communication were fair and proportionate given regard to all the circumstances.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

37. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
38. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint. It then sent its final response 12 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. Both of these responses were in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. We have previously encouraged the landlord to adopt practices set out in our special report on record keeping, Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord has not adopted our suggestions about having dedicated ASB case files. However, its records were sufficiently detailed to allow us to investigate the complaint.

Communication

40. The resident does not agree with the landlord’s findings in this case. However, the landlord’s communication with her throughout its handling of what we have investigated was reasonable.