Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Magna Housing Limited (202501035)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501035

Magna Housing Limited

1 October 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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 3 bedroom house, with her children on an assured tenancy since 2016. The resident is vulnerable as she has said she was a victim of domestic abuse. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 17 February 2025 the resident reported issues with her neighbour’s partner, that he had blocked her car in and shouted at her and her children. She also said she could hear him making threatening comments about her. The landlord acknowledged the report on 19 February 2025 and said the matter had been referred to her housing officer.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 20 February 2025 and said she had had many issues with her neighbour’s partner being abusive in the past. She said her fence needed to be fixed, as she felt unsafe in her home.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 February 2025 and sent its stage 1 response on 13 March 2025. It did not uphold the complaint as it felt it had addressed her concerns within a reasonable period of time. It said the fence had been repaired and it had arranged to meet with the resident to discuss her concerns and complete a risk assessment and action plan.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated the same day. She accepted the fence had been repaired but explained she had had issues with her neighbour’s partner for 6 years and her concerns were being dismissed.
  6. On 19 March 2025 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and it issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2025. It did not uphold the complaint because it said since she reported issues on 19 and 20 February 2025, it had arranged for a housing officer to meet with her to discuss the ASB and listened to the issues she had been having. It recommended she report certain incidents to the police to ensure her safety and explained that its ability to address the behaviour without evidence was limited. However, it said she should still notify it of any further issues by completing a report online.
  7. The resident has said there was a further incident with her neighbour’s partner damaging her car, and this was reported to the police and the landlord, who sent a housing officer round. Since then, she has said there have been no further issues and relations have greatly improved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident mentioned she had been experiencing issues with her neighbour’s partner occasionally, over a number of years. However, no evidence has been provided to support that. When we consider complaints, we usually only take in to account issues reported within 12 months of a complaint being made, therefore if some issues did occur several years before, we would not take these in to account. We have though, considered events following the landlord’s final response to the complaint, as the issue remained unresolved.

How the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ‘responding to reports of nuisance and ASB procedure’ says personal ASB, such as reports of verbal abuse, should be passed to its community safety team to triage and respond to within 5 working days. The landlord did this and met to discuss the resident’s report at a Community Safety Team (CST) meeting the next day, where it considered and risk assessed the situation. Therefore, it followed the correct process. As a result of that meeting, a decision was made that the issue reported stemmed from a parking issue and it was referred to the housing team to address as per its procedure. The resident was informed of this decision within 48 hours of the report being made.
  2. The landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the issue 3 times without success but then wrote to her on 7 March 2025 asking to meet on 19 March 2025. In the meantime, the resident had raised a complaint about the same issue which the landlord responded to. When it met with the resident on 19 March 2025, she explained her issue was with her neighbour’s partner and that she did not like him parking his work van at the property and she had contacted his employer about that. She explained there had been parking issues and that she felt intimidated by him and it was causing her anxiety.
  3. The landlord noted that the resident said she found a nail in her tyre, and although she had no evidence it was caused by the neighbour’s partner, she suspected him of doing it. She also said he had scratched her car but had not reported the matter to the police as she did not want to speak to an officer. She explained the landlord had a responsibility to keep her safe.
  4. The landlord explained that after consulting with its CST, it strongly advised the resident to report any incidents to the police. It said its ability to address the neighbour’s partner’s behaviour without evidence was limited. It said it was important for the resident to report any criminal activity to the police and it would also help ensure her safety. In addition, the landlord also told her to report any further incidents by completing its online form. This was appropriate advice, as it would enable the landlord to monitor whether there were any further issues and was in accordance with its procedure for dealing with reports of this nature.
  5. A further report of ASB was made on 21 July 2025, about the neighbour’s partner blocking in the resident’s daughter’s car and being abusive. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and discussed the incident. The landlord’s records also state support was offered to the resident as it was mindful she had experienced domestic abuse in the past. The resident declined the offer but explained that when issues occurred, she felt it sometimes set her back. The landlord also offered to contact the company that helped her with target hardening, but the resident said there was nothing it could help her with at that time. However, it was agreed the landlord would speak sensitively to the neighbour about the issues and it would also look in to the parking arrangements.
  6. Following that meeting, the landlord managed to clarify the parking arrangements and wrote to several properties, including the resident’s and the neighbour’s, setting out where people could park. It also wrote separately to the neighbour about her partner’s behaviour.
  7. There is reference to a further parking dispute occurring in August 2025 and the neighbour taking issue with some of the allegations made. However, the landlord liaised with both the resident and neighbour, and suggested mediation as an option. Although that seemed to be accepted by both parties, since then there have been no more issues have been reported. Therefore, no further action has been taken at this time.
  8. Overall, we are satisfied the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s partner’s behaviour in a reasonable way and a finding of no maladministration has been made. It assessed the allegations and attempted to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of needing to collate evidence before it could consider taking any action. Despite that, it still investigated the parking situation and wrote to several residents reminding them of where they could park. It also considered multi-agency involvement, as it encouraged the resident to also report issues to the police. In addition, it offered the resident safeguarding support which was appropriate, as it recognised she had been through a difficult time in the past and was vulnerable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.