Midland Heart Limited (202430243)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430243

Midland Heart Limited

10 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The residents report that the landlord had breached her confidentiality.
    2. The residents’ safeguarding and support needs following her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord for a ground-floor flat. The neighbour whom she complained about lived in a flat above. The resident’s daughter acts as her representative.
  2. Between August 2024 and January 2025, the resident reported noise nuisance and banging from her neighbour. This progressed to reports of harassment from her neighbour. The representative complained in September 2024 but did not receive a response from the landlord. She complained again on 17 January 2025. She said the landlord was not handling the ASB case appropriately, and explained the resident had vulnerabilities which it was not supporting her with.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 February 2025. It said it adhered to its policy in managing the ASB case. It said it considered the resident’s physical and mental vulnerabilities throughout and took appropriate safeguarding measures.
  4. The representative escalated the complaint on 27 February 2025. She said there were inaccuracies in the stage 1 response. She believed the landlord had failed to appropriately refer the resident for safeguarding with the local authority in November 2024 and February 2025. She also asked for an update on actions the landlord would take to support the resident.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 April 2025. It was confident it had done everything possible to support the resident. Nonetheless, it recognised how the ASB was affecting her and agreed to move her to a different property. It confirmed the legal action it was taking against the neighbour and offered compensation of £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  6. The representative complained to us that the landlord failed to refer the resident for safeguarding. She also said the landlord had shared information about the resident with a neighbour. She wanted the resident to be moved to a 2-bedroom bungalow. She asked for the landlord to review its policies regarding residents with vulnerabilities.
  7. The landlord and representative have subsequently confirmed that the resident moved to a 2-bedroom bungalow on 18 August 2025.

Assessment and findings

The residents report that the landlord had breached her confidentiality

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that we may not investigate a complaint about an issue which is in the jurisdiction of another regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. The resident’s representative stated in her complaint to the us that the landlord breached the resident’s confidentiality by sharing information with a neighbour. She asked for the landlord to apologise to the resident she stated it incorrectly contacted.
  4. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal specifically with concerns about data protection and handling. It is therefore the more appropriate organisation to consider this type of complaint. Contact details for the ICO can be found on its website at www.ico.org.uk. As such we will not investigate this element of the complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. On 9 October 2025 the representative told us about new issues with the landlord. This included installation of CCTV and an alarm and financial arrears. There is no evidence the landlord has provided a final complaint response to these issues. Once the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, she can raise these issues with us. These points will not be assessed in this report.

The residents’ reports of safeguarding and support requirements relating to ASB

  1. The landlord’s safeguarding policy confirms its responsibilities under the Care Act 2014, which introduced a framework for social housing providers with responsibilities for adult safeguarding. In line with the Act, the landlord has a statutory obligation, primarily, to report safeguarding concerns to the relevant authorities to ensure appropriate action is taken.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms it will complete a risk assessment upon receiving a report of ASB to assess and prioritise the risk of harm. Its approach to dealing with ASB is individual to the complaint. It will identify support needs and work with relevant partner organisations.
  3. In her initial complaint, the representative raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of a safeguarding issue. The resident had told the landlord the ASB was causing her to have thoughts of self-harm in September 2024. In its stage 1 reply of 17 February 2025, the landlord said it referred the family to the police at the time. It said the police then signposted the resident to mental health support. There is no evidence which confirms or disputes this. As such, we are unable to determine if the landlord acted appropriately.
  4. In the complaint escalation, the representative raised concerns about 2 safeguarding requests. She said in November 2024, it raised a care needs assessment with the local council rather than a safeguarding referral. She said when it raised a further safeguarding referral in February 2025, the local council was unaware of the resident’s history of self-harm due to it making an incorrect referral in November 2024.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 reply of 30 April 2025 confirmed it referred the resident to the council for safeguarding at the start of December 2024 at the representative’s request. The landlord’s notes at the time suggest it made a safeguarding referral. The action it took was therefore appropriate and in accordance with its safeguarding policy.
  6. The evidence also confirms the landlord made a further safeguarding referral to the council in February 2025, at the representative’s request. As such the landlord acted appropriately at this time and in accordance with its safeguarding policy.
  7. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord also explained that it had supported the resident. This is reflected in the evidence, which shows that in line with its policy it completed risk assessments on 19 August, 30 September, and 4 November 2024. It maintained an action plan throughout the complaint, which it regularly updated and communicated to the resident and agreed to work with agencies supporting her. It also arranged and conducted meetings directly with the representative between March and May 2025.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord used its discretion to move the resident to an alternative property, despite it not being obligated to do so. That demonstrated its appreciation that while it had taken reasonable and appropriate actions to support her in line with its policy and her circumstances, the resident had nonetheless clearly experienced significant distress, which the move could resolve.
  9. In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its safeguarding and ASB policies. It maintained regular communication, assessed risk, and completed appropriate safeguarding referrals when required to, meeting its legal obligations. The landlord acted reasonably in moving the resident to a suitable alternative property, which was the outcome she was seeking. We have seen no evidence of failings in its handling of the issues complained about in this investigation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will provide its stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will agree any extensions to these timescales with the complainant.
  2. The representative initially raised a complaint in September 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 11 September and then asked for an extension to reply on 25 September. Despite our intervention at the time there is no evidence of it providing a formal complaint response. The landlord failed to acknowledge or offer any remedy in its later complaint responses for this.
  3. The representative raised her complaint again on 17 January 2025. The landlord spoke with the resident on 6 February, but this exceeded its timescale for acknowledging a complaint by 9 working days. It sent its formal response on 17 February, exceeding its timescale for response in its policy by 11 working days. It did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses or offer any remedy.
  4. The representative escalated her complaint on 27 February 2025. The landlord replied to this complaint on 30 April 2025. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 23 working days. However, the landlord agreed extensions on 26 March and then 25 April, appropriately explaining it needed time to provide accurate answers. It also apologised and offered £50 compensation, which was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy for this delay.
  5. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in September 2024. It was delayed in acknowledging and responding to her further complaint in January 2025. It apologised and offered compensation only for its delays responding to the resident’s escalated complaint in February 2025, leaving its complaint handling errors only partly remedied. We have determined there was service failure and have ordered £150 compensation for the delayed management of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of safeguarding and support requirements relating to ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the complaint that the landlord breached the resident’s confidentiality is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 within 4 weeks of this report. This amount includes the £50 it offered to the resident on 30 April 2025, if it has not already paid this. This must not be offset against any arrears.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order in the given timescale.