From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202438573)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438573

Orbit Housing Association Limited

16 June 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by a neighbour.
    2. Reports about overgrown bushes and required repairs to the side entrance gates.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom first floor flat in a low-rise block. The landlord, a housing association, owns the building. The resident has mental health concerns and physical disabilities which are known to the landlord.
  2. Between March and October 2024, the resident made frequent reports to the landlord about a neighbour causing ASB. This included slamming doors, arguments, drugs and alcohol, loud music, false accusations, threats from the neighbour’s visitors, and domestic disturbances.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 October 2024 about the ongoing ASB. He added that the side entrance gates did not lock, visibility was restricted due to overgrown bushes, and this caused concern for his safety.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 October 2024. It apologised that he had to chase about the overgrown areas and said it would arrange to change the gate locks. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of the upset and time spent chasing for a resolution. It confirmed that it had an open ASB case and was working with partner agencies. It said it would maintain contact and provide an update.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 November 2024. He said that he saw no evidence of anything being done with respect to the ASB. He said he spent all of his time filling in diary sheets and logging incidents yet his neighbour continued to make everyday life a misery. He added that all 4 gates needed repair and required 1 key to unlock all gates.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 December 2024. It repeated that it was working with the police and Environmental Health and that both agencies confirmed they were looking to take further action. It explained that it must give the perpetrator chance to address their behaviour and that it utilised a variety of interventions aimed at preventing further incidents. If these were unsuccessful, it would consider tenancy enforcement action. It confirmed that it changed the gate locks on 18 December 2024.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He told us that his neighbour continues to cause ASB. He wants the landlord to resolve the matter and compensate him for the distress and lack of action. He wants it to change the locks on the gates and provide 1 key rather than 4 separate keys.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence he said that the ongoing ASB caused sleep deprivation, anxiety, depression, and affected his mental and physical health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the landlord’s inaction affecting the resident’s health is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience likely caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Reports of ASB

  1. The resident first complained to the landlord on 28 March 2024. He said that a new neighbour had moved into the flat below and within less than a week was causing noise nuisance. He sent in diary sheets in April and May 2024 reporting the behaviour described above. He said that the police had attended multiple times and, in some instances, arrested the neighbour and their visitor.
  2. A landlord has 2 main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will respond to reports of noise nuisance within 3 working days. It adds that it will complete a risk assessment and an action plan with the resident to manage expectations on how it will investigate and respond to the reported ASB. It also outlines that it will work in partnership with other organisations such as the police and the local authority.
  4. The landlord failed to provide evidence to show that it completed a risk assessment or action plan at the time of receiving the ASB report. This did not demonstrate that it followed its policy.
  5. The landlord did, however, demonstrate working with other organisations in May and June 2024. Environmental Health served a noise abatement notice and the police issued community protection warnings (CPW) to the neighbour and their partner for harassment, alarm and distress. The landlord and police also carried out a joint visit to the neighbour. This demonstrated a multi-agency approach to addressing the reported ASB in line with its policy.
  6. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have written to the neighbour following the joint visit but we have seen no evidence of this. It could have set out its expectations of behaviour and the neighbour’s obligations to adhere to the tenancy conditions. It should be noted that the neighbour made counter allegations against the resident which were investigated by the police. These were unfounded and no further action was taken. The police concluded that the resident was the victim.
  7. The CPW was breached on 2 occasions and the police confirmed that if further breaches occurred it would proceed with a community protection notice (CPN). The landlord continued to monitor the case between June and August 2024. It concluded that the CPW had the desired effect as there had been no reported incidents during this time. It sought to close the case with the resident’s agreement in September 2024 and gave a written warning to the neighbour. These actions were appropriate as there had been a 3-month period with no further incident suggesting that the neighbour had changed their behaviour. It was also good practice to confirm with the resident that he was happy for it to close the case.
  8. However, shortly after closing the case in September 2024, the resident reported that the neighbour and their partner were repeating the same behaviours. In his complaint in October 2024, he explained that while it had referred to the neighbour as being vulnerable, he also had mental health and physical disabilities. Again, there is no evidence that a risk assessment was completed to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities. While the landlord told us that it completed an assessment when it reopened the case, we have not had sight of this.
  9. It was appropriate for the landlord to reopen the ASB case and seek guidance from the partner agencies on the actions they were taking. The police confirmed that the CPW had expired, and the process would have to begin again. They recommended that the landlord pursue the noise aspect of the case as the diary sheets indicated this was the primary issue. They asked the landlord to consider evicting the neighbour due to the failure of previous actions. Environmental Health confirmed that there had been 2 breaches of the abatement notice since its previous warning.
  10. The landlord suggested a further joint visit with the police to the neighbour and implementing an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC). It said it could not evict the neighbour but would put things in place and if breached it would take further action. Given the history, evidence of breaches, and repeat unchanged behaviour, it is unclear why the landlord chose to do an ABC over an injunction or possession action. An ABC is not legally binding and would unlikely have had a different effect to the CPW.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonable in explaining the actions the police and Environmental health were taking. It explained that once notices were in place it would continue with tenancy action. It explained that it took reports of ASB seriously but the law prevented it from evicting without a court order. It said it had to try “all other means” to resolve the issue before possession was granted. It would have been helpful to have explained in more detail what it meant by “all other means”, given an indication of expected timeframes, and committed to a frequency of contact to keep the resident informed. This is something that an action plan would have achieved but we have seen no evidence of an action plan.
  12. The evidence shows that the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 1 November 2024 reminding them of their tenancy obligations. It said that if there were any further tenancy breaches it may take legal action which may result in the loss of their home. This was an appropriate action and gave the neighbour a further chance. It would also have added to its evidence in building its case and demonstrated to a court that it had given the neighbour the opportunity to change their behaviour.
  13. After the police issued a further CPW in November 2024, they expressed concerns about both the resident and neighbour due to their vulnerabilities. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately raised this with its safeguarding team. It had offered support to the neighbour on multiple occasions but they had declined this. However, there is no evidence to show that it offered any support to the resident at the time.
  14. There were further breaches of the CPW in November 2024 and the landlord agreed an ABC with the neighbour. As mentioned previously, it is unclear why the landlord chose this action. The ABC was breached, and the landlord advised the resident it would give a further warning to the neighbour. It said it would only put an injunction in place if it were proportionate to do so. This likely added to the resident’s frustration and assertion that the neighbour had been given multiple chances to change their behaviour. Given the ongoing ASB, diary sheets, 2 CPWs, a noise abatement notice and warnings, an ABC, and 2 previous written warnings, it would have been proportionate to consider alternative measures such as an injunction or tenancy action.
  15. The resident involved his MP on 28 November 2024 as there had been no resolution. He said that threats had been made by the neighbour’s partner, and they continued to breach orders. He also raised an ASB case review (community trigger) in December 2024. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident in seeking support to resolve the ongoing ASB. We have not had sight of the landlord’s response to the MP or findings of the ASB case review.
  16. The evidence shows that the resident continued to report breaches of the CPW in December 2024. The police confirmed that they issued a CPN which was subsequently breached. According to the resident, a further noise abatement notice was also issued. The landlord contacted the police on 18 December 2024 asking what action had been taken in relation to the breaches. It said it was considering eviction on mandatory grounds.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable in explaining the actions the partner agencies were taking and the actions they were considering. It confirmed it was taking a multi-agency approach to tackling the issues but did not explain the actions it was taking. It said it understood that the ASB was having a “significant impact” on the resident and it was continuing to build a case against the neighbour. It repeated its explanation about giving perpetrators the opportunity to address their behaviour.
  18. It is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. However, the landlord appeared to rely solely on the actions of the partner agencies to inform its decisions. Given the evidence it had, it did not demonstrate that it considered the range of options available to enforce the conditions of the tenancy such as using discretionary grounds, or an injunction. It could have sought legal advice as to the weight of its evidence and likely success of any legal action.
  19. Following the landlord’s final response the resident continued to submit diary sheets in December 2024, January, and February 2025. The landlord said it was waiting for the police to charge the neighbour before proceeding with tenancy action. It explained that while it could take action without the police arresting the neighbour for the breaches, this would be via an injunction which would be the same as the clauses of the CPN. Following an arrest in February 2025 for 5 breaches, the landlord further explained that it needed to wait for the certificate of conviction.
  20. In February 2025 the landlord offered the resident support for his mental health. While this was a reasonable action, it was almost a year after the ASB commenced. It is unclear why it did not offer support previously. Its ASB policy states when dealing with allegations it will consider early on, the support needs of complainants. Where it identified support needs it may make support referrals. It may also signpost to external organisations and as a matter of routine, offer to make a referral to victim support unless another organisation has done so. This again shows that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities throughout his complaint or follow its ASB policy.
  21. We recognise that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ongoing ASB. He told us that the neighbour remains in the property and continues to cause ASB.
  22. In summary, while the landlord demonstrated working in partnership with other agencies, there were some failings in its handling of the ASB. It did not demonstrate that it completed risk assessments, action plans, or offer support until almost a year later. It could have considered legal action at an earlier stage and has not provided a permanent resolution.
  23. For the above reasons we have made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £100 to the resident which is in line with our remedies guidance when a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right. We have also made an order for the landlord to confirm its current position in relation to the ongoing ASB and what actions it proposes to take to resolve the matter. We note, however, that the progress of the ASB case review, if still ongoing, must also be taken into consideration.

Reports about overgrown bushes and required repairs to gates

  1. In the resident’s complaint he said that despite multiple requests to the landlord, the bushes around the grounds remained overgrown. He confirmed that they had been trimmed on 4 October 2024, the day of his complaint. He said that the lack of maintenance meant the gates were blocked which reduced visibility. He explained that due to the ASB by his neighbour, he could not see them approaching the property until they were already through the gate. This put him at risk of confrontation and risked his safety. He added that the gates did not lock, which defeated the idea of a secure communal garden and car park. He added that the main gate was too far away for him to walk with his disabilities thus was not an alternative. He had reported the gates 3 weeks prior and was told it would inspect them promptly.
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord resolving the above issues. It appropriately apologised in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had to chase about the overgrown bushes and that this caused him concern. Its compensation offer of £150 was reasonable in recognising the upset the matter caused and the time he spent chasing to resolve the matter. This was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. However, while it said it would visit and change the gate locks, it did not specify any timescale. It would have been helpful to have confirmed when it would do this as he had expressed concerns about his safety.
  3. In the resident’s escalation request he asked that all 4 gates be repaired and for the landlord to provide a single key. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it changed the gate locks on 18 December 2024. This was 75 calendar days after the resident raised his complaint and not in line with its repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days for routine repairs. It should also have considered whether it should have given a higher priority to complete the work given his safety concerns. While we appreciate the resident wanted 1 key to all 4 gates, the landlord’s decision to provide 1 key for each gate was not unreasonable.
  4. In the landlord’s explanation to us it explained that following receipt of the resident’s complaint, it attended on 21 November 2024. This was 48 calendar days later and not in line with its repairs policy timescale. Its operative was unable to get in contact whilst on site and did not complete the work as they had not wanted to remove locks without speaking to staff. It asked its contractor to reattend on 17 December 2024, a further 26 calendar days later. However, the resident informed the contractor to swap rather than replace the cylinders. The contractor stopped the repair to discuss this with its property manager and reattended the following day to complete the work.
  5. In summary, while the landlord appropriately offered an apology and redress at stage 1, the delays in completing the work continued and it should have considered offering the resident further compensation. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay to the resident the sum of £50 for the further failings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance as stated above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB caused by a neighbour.
    2. Reports about overgrown bushes and required repairs to the side entrance gates.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £300 broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for distress and inconvenience for the failings identified in its handling of the ASB.
      2. £200 for distress and inconvenience for the delay in replacing the gate locks. (this includes £150 offered at stage 1 which can be deducted if already paid).
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Confirm to the resident what action it is taking to address the ongoing ASB. It must complete a risk assessment, an action plan, and confirm any additional support the resident may need while the matter remains ongoing.
    4. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.