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.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202326331)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326331

Platform Housing Group Limited

3 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns about parking.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives alone in a 2-bedroom property. The resident’s front living room window is visible from the street.
  2. The resident has been in a long standing disagreement with his neighbours for a number of years. Several previous incidents had happened which were dealt with primarily by the police.
  3. On 9 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report several undated incidents of alleged ASB. These included being shouted at and an individual ‘standing on his front lawn’ to cause intimidation. The resident also made the landlord aware of some historic incidents of ASB and raised concerns about cars parking on the road outside his house.
  4. On 22 September 2022 the landlord visited the resident. It discussed the history between the resident and his neighbours. It discussed the incidents raised by the resident and next steps. It advised the resident that it could not act on his concerns about parking on the road, as it was a public area.
  5. On 2 October 2022 the resident reported an incident to the landlord. He said that one of his neighbours had banged on his front door, while another had made hand gestures through his front window. The resident advised the landlord he had called the police. The resident asked the landlord not to take action until the police had completed its investigation. The landlord visited the resident again on 18 October 2022.
  6. On 5 January 2023 the resident reported an incident to the landlord where the same neighbour stared at him in an intimidating manner as he entered his property. The landlord conducted a joint visit to the resident with the police on 10 January 2023. The landlord informed the resident it would be taking no further action at this time, but would arrange a further visit with a named police officer who had been dealing primarily with the resident’s reports. This visit took place on 23 January 2023.
  7. The resident reported to the landlord that he was verbally abused by 2 neighbours on 4 February 2023 and had called the police. The landlord visited the resident alongside the police on 20 February 2023.
  8. On 27 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the incidents he had reported because:
    1. he felt the landlord should have done more, such as take legal action against his neighbours
    2. he felt that a member of the landlord’s staff had made inappropriate comments at a joint meeting with the police
    3. the landlord had not taken action in response to his concerns about cars parking on the road outside his property.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2023. It said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, because:
    1. it had followed its ASB Policy in response to the resident’s concerns
    2. the steps it had taken in the resident’s ASB case had been reasonable and proportionate, based on the evidence it had found in its investigations
    3. that comments made by its staff had been ‘reasonable, factual and relevant’
    4. it had advised the resident previously that ‘parking spaces are unassigned and anyone can use them, regardless of where they live or if they have designated spaces elsewhere’
  10. On 12 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He repeated the concerns which he raised at stage 1, including his description of the incidents and his disappointment in the action that the landlord had taken in response.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 May 2023. It reiterated what it had said at stage 1 of the complaint response. It reminded the resident of some options it had previously offered to help manage the ASB, such as mediation, or entering into an ‘Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). It said that although the resident had previously declined to take these options further, they remained open to him.
  12. On 1 November 2023 the resident approached this Service. He asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. The resident reiterated the concerns he raised with the landlord as part of his complaint and his dissatisfaction with the action the landlord had taken in response. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to take legal action against the neighbours or to move the resident to a different 2-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of historic reports of ASB, such as an assault which took place in May 2021. The resident first complained to the landlord in February 2023, approximately 1 year and 9 months after the incident. The landlord did not comprehensively respond to this incident in its complaint responses due to the time which had passed, in line with its complaints policy. We have found it reasonable to investigate the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from when the resident first began reporting them to the landlord, which was in September 2022.
  2. The resident also asked this service to investigate the landlord’s handling of events which took place after its stage 2 complaint response. This included new concerns the resident raised with the landlord about its handling of allegations of ASB made about him. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. This means that it is important the landlord has had an opportunity to respond before we investigate. It is fair and reasonable therefore that we only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s final response in May 2023.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy (the policy) sets out the principles it will follow in responding to reports of ASB. The policy sets out that it will:
    1. respond to reports of ASB with a clear focus on prevention and early intervention, with the intention of building safe and sustainable communities
    2. ensure its response to each individual case will be proportionate and reasonable
    3. commit to the use of mediation and similar interventions, which should always be looked at as the first stage in any complaint
    4. try to take into account the wishes of the complainant
    5. regularly communicate with complainants so that they are aware of progress made with their case
    6. select the tools or powers most appropriate to resolve the case, via a multiagency approach, on a case by case basis

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB and concerns about parking

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy does not provide a timescale by which it should respond to reports of ASB. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of 9 September 2022 by visiting him 9 working days later, on 22 September 2022. The resident’s reports did not indicate that he was at immediate risk and so this timescale was reasonable.
  2. The landlord offered to arrange mediation at the first opportunity, in line with its policy, but the resident refused to see the individuals concerned. The landlord showed good practice by offering an alternative solution of ‘shuttle mediation’ so that the resident did not have to see the neighbours. This was in line with its policy of being resident-led. The resident refused this offer. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable action in line with its policy. The evidence shows that the landlord made further offers of mediation again on 2 October 2022, 23 January 2023, 20 February 2023, and in both of its complaint responses in March 2023 and May 2023.
  3. The landlord also visited the neighbours concerned on 27 September 2022 to discuss the issues which had been brought to its attention. This was a reasonable and proportionate step to take. The evidence shows that the landlord maintained frequent and appropriate contact with the neighbours throughout the period assessed. For example, it called them on 7 December 2022 and arranged a home visit. It visited them again alongside the police on 18 January 2023. We cannot share specific details of what was discussed but the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to try and prevent further escalation, in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord consistently took reasonable steps to investigate and gather evidence. For example it visited the resident again on 18 October 2022 to investigate the incident of 2 October 2022. It viewed video footage shown to it by the resident and took notes. The landlord and resident discussed the possibility of erecting a fence in front of the resident’s property, to give him more privacy. This was a reasonable step to take in line with landlord’s aim to find preventive solutions.
  5. During this visit the landlord said it would check in with the resident fortnightly. The evidence shows that the landlord did this. This was an example of the landlord following its policy to ‘regularly communicate with complainants so that they are aware of progress made with their case’. It did this frequently throughout the period assessed and gave the resident a clear overview of the steps it would or would not take at each given time.
  6. For example, on 10 January 2023 it was clear in managing the resident’s expectations that it would not take enforcement action against the neighbours at that time. This was based on the description of events, the findings of the landlord’s investigations, and in line with its policy to take proportionate action. Although it said it would take no further action, the landlord committed to a further joint meeting with a named police officer of the resident’s choosing. This showed good practice and was also in line with its policy of being resident-led.
  7. The resident was frustrated with time taken for landlord to liaise with a named police officer between 17 November 2022 and 22 December 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord made several attempts to do so but was unsuccessful. It left messages with the officer’s colleagues and waited for callbacks. It is understandable from the evidence seen that this caused frustration to resident at that time. However there is no evidence of any failings.
  8. The landlord consistently followed its policy by employing a multi-agency approach. For example it liaised with police frequently, organizing joint visits on 10 January 2023, 23 January 2023, and 20 February 2023. The evidence shows that it also visited the neighbours with the police. This was reasonable, appropriate, and in line with its policy.
  9. In the visit to the resident on 20 February 2023 the landlord discussed reasonable next steps. As part of this it said it would chase the relevant team about erecting a fence, to prevent future occurrences of ASB through his front window. This was particularly appropriate because the resident had raised separate concerns about people walking over his front lawn or looking into his property. The landlord also discussed having both parties sign an ABC. This was a further proportionate and potentially preventative measure to consider at this time. The resident refused this offer.
  10. During the meeting on 20 February 2023 the resident reported that he had been the victim of an assault by an unknown perpetrator. He said he could not recall much because he had been drinking and was ‘knocked out’. The evidence shows that the landlord and police asked appropriate questions during this meeting to investigate this report. The landlord later noted that it had found no evidence that the assault took place or of who the perpetrator may have been. As this was a criminal matter, it was right that the landlord allowed the police to act as the prime investigator of this allegation. The landlord nevertheless carried out its own reasonable and proportionate enquiries.
  11. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it consistently offered steps such as mediation, the erection of a fence, and advised the resident of other options available to him such as to contact the local authority for a ‘community trigger’ meeting (ASB Case Review). These were all reasonable and proportionate solutions to offer. The evidence shows that the fence was later erected. The landlord showed good practice by erecting the fence.
  12. The landlord also showed good practice by planning a meeting with multiple agencies to ‘ensure everything possible had been done by all agencies’. It later advised in its stage 2 response that this was no longer needed, because the resident had requested an ASB Case Review through the local authority. The evidence shows that this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. The resident also wanted to move properties. It was correct that the landlord offered advice to the resident on the process of moving properties, as part of its complaint responses. The landlord confirmed that the resident was appropriately registered with the local authority for a move. The landlord’s stage 2 response also advised the resident of an alternative way he could seek a move, through a ‘mutual exchange’. The landlord showed good practice by including an explanation of this process and including a link to the appropriate website.
  14. The resident had raised concerns about a named staff member as part of his complaint due to comments that had been made. The resident asked that the staff member be removed from dealing with his case, but the landlord refused. The resident and landlord both agree on the comments that were made. These were that the resident ‘called police a lot’. The landlord later said this was ‘factual and relevant’ and that the police, who were present at the meeting, did not disagree. This clearly caused frustration to the resident, however there is no evidence that this comment reflected a failing.
  15. The other comment that concerned the resident was a suggestion that the resident take an alternative route in and out of the property to avoid contact with the neighbours. The resident felt this suggestion was inappropriate and unfair. However this suggestion appeared to be a reasonable suggestion in line with landlord’s aim to find preventative measures that foster long term community sustainability, as set out in its policy. As a result there is no evidence that the landlord’s decision not to remove the staff member from resident’s ASB case was unreasonable.
  16. Part of the resident’s concerns about being advised to use an alternative route to and from his property (to the rear/via the carpark) was that this route poorly lit and had no CCTV. He asked the landlord to rectify this. He explained that this would help him feel more safe. In its complaint responses the landlord said it would review the lighting but could make no further promises. It was appropriate that the landlord committed to investigating this further.
  17. It was also appropriate that the landlord considered the resident’s request to install CCTV. The landlord concluded in its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023 that it did not feel there was a ‘demonstrable need’. It outlined the steps that would need to be taken to install CCTV. This included the wider consultation of residents and a likely increase in service charges for all residents, concluding that this would not be proportionate. This decision was reasonable and appropriate.
  18. The evidence shows that part of the resident’s concerns was that cars were being parked on the road outside his home or in designated parking spaces. The resident was concerned that individuals parking in that location may have had access to their own designated parking space and were parking intentionally in that location to cause annoyance. The evidence suggests that these spaces were on a public highway with no parking restrictions.
  19. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the road was a public area and that there were no steps it could reasonably take to prevent parking in that location. It added that any member of the public, resident to the area or not, could park there. The evidence shows that the landlord’s response was reasonable. There were no steps the landlord should have taken under its policy in response to the resident’s reports.
  20. In conclusion, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord followed its policy comprehensively, and made reasonable, proportionate, and evidence-based decisions. The landlord made a number of offers of solutions which may have given the landlord further tools to escalate action against the neighbours, such as mediation or asking residents to sign an ABC, but this was refused. In view of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, we must also consider the action or inaction of the resident. The landlord showed good practice by taking what preventative measures it could, frequently communicating with all parties, and appropriately managing the resident’s expectations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.