Plus Dane Housing Limited (202505207)

Background

1. The resident lives with her young son in a ground floor flat. They have experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) from different neighbours and asked to be rehoused in a different area. The resident and her son have neurodiverse and mental health vulnerabilities known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

5. We found that the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports was in line with its policies and procedures. It identified a delay in following up a case and apologised. However, it failed to show it had considered a risk assessment for one of the ASB incidents.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident said the incidents reported caused her and her son significant distress. It is important to note it is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. We can assess how the landlord has dealt with the reports it received and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice.
8. The landlord contacted the resident the day after her report of ASB on 21 April 2024. This aligned with the response time in its ASB procedure for urgent ASB reports. The landlord arranged to visit the resident and categorised the case as a level 2. This was in line with its ASB policy which lists verbal abuse as a level 2, medium risk.
9. The landlord visited the resident on 30 April 2024. It discussed the incident and asked her to consider mediation. It offered a referral to its support team which the resident did not require at the time. It completed a risk assessment and an action plan. The resident confirmed she was receiving support. The landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour and review the case monthly. It asked the resident to complete an incident diary.
10. On 2 May 2024 the landlord discussed the issue with the alleged perpetrator. The landlord’s actions were in line with its ASB procedure which states it will engage with the perpetrator to resolve the report and assess harm and risk.
11. On 5 June 2024 the landlord attended a multi-agency meeting for the resident’s son at his school. It learned that the resident had reported a hate crime to the police, involving racial abuse from another neighbour. The resident said she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour at this time as she wanted to give them a chance. The landlord confirmed she had support from the local authority and support services and made referrals for more support. It agreed to follow up on 10 July 2024. The landlord’s actions were in line with its ASB Policy which says it will participate in local multi-agency arrangements for safeguarding children, young people and adults.
12. On 10 July 2024 the landlord attempted to call the resident for a follow up and left a message asking her to call back. The landlord noted that it should have contacted the resident around 2 June 2024, as it had agreed monthly follow ups in her action plan. It was positive that the landlord identified the failure in service. It is unclear if the resident responded to the landlord.
13. On 12 August 2024 a local authority support service invited the landlord to a meeting to discuss support for the resident. The landlord learned that she had reported intimidation and harassment by a neighbour to the police 2 weeks prior. It visited the resident the following week to discuss the issue. The resident said she had been verbally abused and had to remove her son from school because of bullying. She said she wanted to move.
14. The landlord explained that a management move would require police evidence that she was at a high risk. This was in line with its lettings policy which says that management moves would occur where a resident’s health and safety faced a serious and imminent risk if they were to remain in their own home. It gave her housing options and confirmed that she had support from social care, a family worker, a hate crime service and Citizen’s Advice. With consent, on 23 August 2024 it requested a Police and Communities Together Report (PACT).
15. It would have been reasonable at this point for the landlord to have completed a new risk assessment for the resident. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that when a case does not require a risk assessment, it should add a note to the case to evidence the rationale for bypassing the task. Whilst the lack of assessment did not prevent the landlord from taking reasonable action in response to the ASB, the lack of evidence to show it considered one was a failure to comply with its own procedure.
16. On 3 October 2024 the landlord noted there had been no further ASB reports from the resident. On 4 November a support worker asked the landlord to contact the resident after she said a neighbour tried speaking to her son. The landlord visited the resident on 6 November 2024. She said she wanted the landlord to speak to the neighbour and that local children were still causing problems, but she was unable to identify them. On 6 December 2024, the landlord visited the neighbour.
17. The resident complained that the landlord had not acted on the ASB reports. In its stage 1 response, the landlord listed the actions it had taken in response to the reports. It added that it received information from the police on 26 September 2024 which did not add any new details. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in informing the resident of this and apologised. This was reasonable.
18. In her complaint, the resident expressed her concern for the distress caused to her son. She listed both their vulnerabilities and said how her son’s life was severely impacted by bullying from local children, resulting in his absence from school. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised that the resident and her son had been affected by ASB. It said the actions it had taken were proportionate to the incidents reported, based on the evidence it had. It had ensured there was appropriate support in place and liaised with the son’s school. It also continued to work with the police to investigate the reports. The landlord acknowledged the points raised by the resident. It responded with reference to the actions it had taken in line with its policies.
19. In her escalation, the resident said she had reported further ASB incidents involving the local children to the police. On 8 May 2025 she complained to the landlord that neighbours were smoking inside the property and outside her door. She said it affected both her and her son’s health, as their conditions made them sensitive to smells and noise. The resident filed an ASB report to the landlord on 13 May 2025, stating children tried to take her son’s scooter, threw balls at her windows and closed them from outside.
20. The landlord responded to the ASB report on the same day, in line with its ASB procedure. Within 8 working days, it visited the resident, completed a risk assessment and action plan. It confirmed she had support in place, requested a new PACT and provided information on mediation services. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policies and procedures.
21. As part of the plan, the landlord agreed to take action following updates from the police who were dealing with the case and working to identify the children. It said it would address the smoking issue. There is no evidence to show that the landlord addressed the smoking issue. This was a record keeping oversight.
22. In her escalation, the resident said she felt racially targeted and that her son was traumatised. On 20 June 2025 the resident said her son had been referred to a psychologist. The resident said she needed to move to help him recover and she was concerned about further incidents. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that given the impact on her son’s mental health, it would agree a management move. This was in line with its safeguarding procedure which states that the needs of the child or adult at risk must come first, to ensure they are safeguarded and protected.
23. On 19 July 2025 the police informed the landlord that the resident had reported another ASB incident. The resident told the landlord that she was happy to provide details of the incident, but based on its complaint responses, she felt there had been misunderstandings and on occasion, her words and requests had been misinterpreted. She asked that any future conversations be recorded. When discussing incidents, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an updated action plan to the resident, to ensure a mutual understanding of any actions or next steps. 
24. On 11 August 2025 the landlord offered the resident a new property which she moved into on 15 September 2025. The landlord said it would keep the hate crime case open and continue to provide updates throughout the investigation. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to liaise with the police and update the resident.
25. In summary, the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports was in line with its policies and procedures. It identified delays in follow ups and apologised. However, it failed to show it had considered a risk assessment for an ASB incident as assessed above. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation for any distress caused by its failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings that may have caused distress or inconvenience but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code is the 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
27. The resident raised her complaint on 5 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and provided its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. This complied with the response times set by the Code.
28. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged her request 5 working days later and stated it would issue its stage 2 complaint response by 28 May 2025, 20 working days later, in line with the Code.
29. On 28 May 2025 the landlord requested to extend the deadline in issuing its stage 2 response, to enable further investigation into the case. It said it aimed to issue the response by 25 June 2025, 20 working days later. This was in line with the Code which states that any extension to a stage 2 response must be no more than 20 working days without good reason. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 June 2025.
30. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Code and its complaint policy.

Learning

31. The landlord demonstrated good adherence to the Code in its complaint handling. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Overall, the landlord provided clear, detailed documents which enabled a more efficient investigation; however, it failed to provide evidence that it addressed a smoking complaint, which meant that we could not fully assess if it acted reasonably in that instance.

Communication

33. The resident informed the landlord following the stage 2 response that she felt she had been misunderstood. We have recommended that the landlord updates action plans more frequently, especially after discussing incidents, or provides a written summary to ensure a full and mutual understanding of any next steps.