MHS Homes Ltd (202318039)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318039

MHS Homes Ltd

1 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the property (a ground floor, one bedroom flat) from 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
3. Between 7 March 2022 and 10 April 2023 the resident reported several incidents of ASB to the landlord, including damage to her car, verbal abuse and threats of violence. She believed the residents of several neighbouring properties were responsible for some of this.
4. On 11 April 2023 the resident reported that a neighbour (neighbour A) had assaulted her and she had reported this to the police. The landlord met with neighbour A who made counter allegations against the resident. The landlord offered mediation which the resident declined. The landlord warned the resident about her behaviour and said it would issue an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) to both parties if their ASB continued.
5. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB on 3 May 2023. She said she never felt supported or listened to. She felt the landlord did not take her concerns seriously.
6. On 10 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she had been assaulted by another neighbour (neighbour B) on 9 May 2023, resulting in a fractured arm. She said she had reported the incident to the police and later said she believed it was a hate crime motivated by her sexuality.
7. The landlord carried out a risk assessment and action plan following this. Its stage 1 response of 18 May 2023 said it would put the complaint on hold while it investigated the new incident but also upheld the complaint and said it had been looking to explore different options. It confirmed it had agreed to re-house the resident under its social priority process.
8. The resident signed a tenancy for a new property effective from 12 June 2023. She then escalated her complaint on 17 July 2023. She believed the assault of 9 May 2023 could have been prevented if the landlord had responded to her reports of ASB.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 August 2023 (dated 14 August 2023). It said it had reviewed ASB incidents from March 2022 but, at that time, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate any further action. It said that, except for 2 incidents, there were no further reports of ASB involving neighbour B until May 2023. It did not uphold the complaint.
10. The resident told us her health continues to be affected as a result of the assault of 9 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

11. While the evidence indicates a history of ASB reports since 2021, the resident did not raise the formal complaint under investigation here until May 2023. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, we have considered reports dating back to March 2022, just over a year before the complaint was made, which were addressed at both stages of the complaint process.
12. It is not our role to establish the validity of the ASB reports made by the resident. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports to determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out behaviour it considers to be anti-social and how it responds to reports. Its definition of ASB includes: verbal abuse, harassment, threats; vandalism, damage to property; and other physical violence. It explains that harassment can include abusive or insulting words or behaviour and any behaviour that leaves the victim humiliated and/or intimidated.
14. The resident told the landlord that someone had deliberately damaged her car with a key on 7 March 2022. She suspected she knew who did it but had no evidence. Records show the landlord advised her to contact the police. This was appropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy says it expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police and for the police to act if they have sufficient evidence. The landlord was limited in its actions without evidence of who the perpetrator was, and whether they were one of its residents.
15. The next day the resident reported harassment by neighbour B. She provided a crime reference number and video footage. Records note the landlord emailed the police for information. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 March 2022 and said it would visit neighbour B and give them a verbal warning. This was appropriate and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It was also in line with its ASB policy which says it will use appropriate and proportionate action to tackle ASB, using a full range of interventions.
16. The landlord met with neighbour B and warned them to stay away from the resident. However, counter allegations were made, which the resident subsequently denied. The landlord decided not to take any further action as it was one person’s word against another. It noted that it told the resident she needed to ignore all parties and get on with her own life.
17. The landlord followed this advice up by email and said the police were not taking further action as there was no supporting evidence and the video footage did not record anything sufficient to allow them to take enforcement action. It said it had discussed mediation but both parties had declined. Again, this was appropriate. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will try to resolve matters amicably by talking to those concerned and offering suitable advice or mediation.
18. The landlord’s attempt to resolve matters amicably were unsuccessful and reports of ASB continued. On 10 May 2022, the resident reported that neighbour B had threatened to assault her that day and made an inappropriate gesture. She said she reported this to the police and was in shock. She planned to stay with a friend as she did not feel safe in the property.
19. The landlord emailed the resident the next day and said it had tried to call her. It asked what action the police intended to take. It said she could apply for a priority move under its social priority process but she would need a letter from the police to support this, confirming her life was at risk if she stayed at the property.
20. The resident provided supporting video footage on 19 May 2022 (no copy provided to us) and the landlord arranged a meeting for 26 May 2022. A record of this documented that the police were still considering the incident and there was only the resident’s word that it had taken place. It noted that video footage only showed people walking past. Records show the landlord told the resident not to say anything, keep herself to herself and the more she reacted the more the perpetrators would do it. It said there was little it could do without evidence.
21. It was appropriate that the landlord notified the resident of the option of a social priority move, given that she said she did not feel safe in the property. It was also in line with its ASB policy. This says it will consider rehousing under its social priority process, if necessary.
22. However, the landlord’s policy also says it aims to resolve instances of ASB rather than remove a complainant from the situation. It says that where there is harassment or a threat of severe violence it should contact the alleged perpetrator within one working day. There is no evidence the landlord did so in this case and this was a service failure. Its response was unsympathetic and inferred the resident may be to blame for the ASB because of how she was reacting to incidents.
23. The ASB policy says the landlord will risk assess cases and involve complainants in any action. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which requires landlords to assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment in this case (or for all the earlier reports) and this was a service failure.
24. The ASB policy also says that ASB complainants will be involved in agreeing any action. The use of action plans is supported in our own learning from severe maladministration report of November 2024. This says that failures to initiate action plans can undermine the landlord’s response and lead to further failings. We have seen no evidence of any action plan at this point to manage and prevent further incidents of ASB. This was another service failure which, when combined with the other failings, amounts to maladministration.
25. The resident reported at least 8 further incidents of ASB between 8 June 2022 and 7 March 2023. She was unable to identify the perpetrator in all of them but she did report issues with neighbour B on 20 June 2022 and 10 February 2023. There is no evidence the landlord investigated all these reports. Its policy in this respect is contradictory. On one hand it says it will investigate all reports of ASB, but on the other it says it will not always investigate one off instances.
26. We have ordered the landlord to review this policy to clear up any ambiguity. In any event, given the number of ASB reports and the frequency of them, we would have expected the landlord to provide records of a meaningful investigation into these reports, or details of why one was not appropriate. It has not done so and this was a failure. Further, we have not seen evidence that the reports were monitored for any ongoing incidents or when they were closed. This suggests the landlord was not actively managing the resident’s reports of ASB.
27. We accept it would have been difficult for the landlord to manage the ASB reports when there were counter allegations and a lack of physical evidence. However, there were things it could have done to prevent further instances, such as carry out risk assessments and agree action plans. Again, we have not seen evidence that it did so in all instances. The lack of such records suggests the landlord took a reactive approach to each report and did not adhere to its policy and use the full range of resources available to prevent ASB happening. This amounts to maladministration.
28. There is evidence the landlord requested evidence from the police in some cases but there is no record it visited all the alleged perpetrators. Our ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report of November 2024 highlights the importance of partnership relationships and sharing of information with the police. However, it also says landlords should not be over reliant on police action for outcomes. Instead, landlords should fulfil their own responsibilities and look at what actions they should be taking, as well as taking on a range of expert opinions to inform their decision-making process. Had the landlord followed this advice, it may have been able to prevent the ASB from escalating.
29. The landlord also relied heavily on the resident providing evidence to support her reports. Although she provided the name of a potential witness to an incident on 3 March 2023, that she believed was due to her sexuality, the landlord documented that it did not have a telephone number for this resident. There is no record it made any further effort to trace or contact the witness to see if she supported the resident’s account. This was not inline with its policy to take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates, and was a failure.
30. The landlord’s definition of hate crime includes incidents involving homophobic or transphobic behaviour and its ASB policy says it will take such incidents very seriously. We have seen no evidence that the landlord clarified whether this incident met the definition of a hate crime and the lack of meaningful action shows it did not take it as seriously as needed. This was a further failure in service.
31. Following the escalation of ASB on 11 April 2023, the landlord acted appropriately. The counter allegations also included an allegation of a hate crime and we note it was a condition of the resident’s tenancy agreement that she did not act in an anti-social way.
32. The landlord’s action of offering mediation and warning the resident were reasonable. As was its notification that it could issue an ABA to both parties if the ASB continued. It showed that it took the potential hate crime very seriously (in line with its policy). It also demonstrated that it was applying its ASB policy to work with perpetrators and complainants to resolve ASB before resorting to legal options such as an ABA. However, again we have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or meaningful action plan to monitor ASB towards the resident going forward and this was another failure in service.
33. The landlord’s handing of ASB towards the resident improved following the assault of 9 May 2023. It is positive that it carried out a risk assessment on 11 May 2023 and contacted the police for information. Its policy says it will support residents in finding temporary accommodation and it was appropriate that it did so promptly in this case, following the resident’s reports that she feared for her safety.
34. The landlord’s case file documented witnesses and potential witnesses to the assault. It noted that the police were due to attend and the resident believed neighbour B should be moved out. It also contained an action plan which was appropriate. Following police support, it is positive that the landlord assisted the resident with a social priority move application on 17 May 2023 and offered a suitable property soon after. These actions were appropriate and showed the landlord took the ASB incident of 9 May 2023 very seriously. The move appears to have stopped ongoing ASB towards the resident involving neighbours A and B.
35. The landlord’s stage 1 response was ambiguous and provided no justification for the complaint being upheld. However, the stage 2 provided more detail and addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction that the perpetrator was not moved out. It referenced a previous incident of ASB from an old address where the perpetrators moved property (this was unrelated to this complaint, and we have not seen details of this). The landlord said it could not discuss the individual circumstances of other customers and there may have been many reasons why the perpetrator moved out.
36. The landlord’s ASB policy says it can evict a perpetrator when it is reasonable and proportionate to do so and the evidence is sufficient and robust enough for successful possession action. We cannot comment on whether the landlord had sufficient evidence to evict the perpetrator of the assault of 9 May 2023. We also understand why it could not discuss this in detail with the resident, due to data protection issues. Unless the perpetrator agreed to move, a court would need to decide whether they should be evicted.
37. We accept the landlord’s stance that there may have been insufficient evidence to support taking further action against parties involved in the ASB. However, it failed to take appropriate preventative measures to manage the ASB and the stage 2 response did not acknowledge this. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right, in contravention of our dispute resolution principles. Further, the response only referred to ASB reports involving neighbour B whereas the resident had complained about the landlords handling of ASB overall and before the incident of 9 May 2023. These failures amount to maladministration.
38. The resident told us her health continues to be affected following the assault of 9 May 2023. While we accept the landlord could have done more to stop the ASB escalating, we do not consider it was responsible for the injuries sustained that day. These were caused by the perpetrator of the assault. However, we accept that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failings.
39. When deciding an appropriate remedy, we must also consider if the resident’s actions might have contributed to the situation she found herself in. We note she declined the offer of mediation and admitted responsibility for ASB herself. Her actions made it more difficult for the landlord to handle the reports of ASB effectively and may have contributed to the escalating situation.
40. Considering all the circumstances of the case, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report and to pay £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there has been maladministration which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to acknowledge its failings or put things right.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of her reports of ASB.
43. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed its ASB policy and clarified whether all reports of ASB will be investigated.