Stockport Homes Limited (202338709)

Background

1. In November 2021, the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving a group of youths. The landlord responded to the reports of ASB and in February 2022, it informed the resident of its decision to close the case. In October 2023 the resident reported damage to his car and in April 2024, he reported noise nuisance, which the landlord followed up with a risk assessment and an action plan.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s housing application.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The resident’s housing application.
   3. The associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

ASB reports

4. Overall, the landlord acted in accordance with its good neighbourhood management (GNM) policy and ASB policy. It discussed the resident’s reports with him, agreed and reviewed action plans, contacted the alleged perpetrators, gathered and assessed evidence, considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and risk factors, signposted him to support services, and liaised with the police.

Housing application

5. The landlord considered the resident’s housing application in line with its allocation policy. It advised him on his housing options, provided him with support in exploring those, promptly assessed his application and shared its decisions with him. It also took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and procedures.

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 landlord was not directly responsible for the ASB, but it had a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to the resident’s ASB reports with a victim centred approach.
8. The landlord investigated the resident’s report of ASB by a group of youth in November 2021 and subsequently closed the case in February 2022. We did not see evidence that the resident had made further ASB reports until October 2023. Therefore, whilst the historical reports provide context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from October 2023, when the resident made new ASB reports.
9. Between October 2023 and July 2024, the resident reported damage to his car, noise nuisance from a neighbouring property, general noise nuisance from the building and noise nuisance from the refuge room. He said that the issues affected his sleep, sense of safety and caused him anxieties.
10. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report that someone had used a knife and scratched his car on 25 October 2023. We have seen evidence of the landlord discussing the ASB report with the resident, reviewing CCTV footage, updating him and informing him when closing the case. These actions were in line with its ASB policy.
11. On 16 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to report an incident involving youths throwing stones at his car. He said that he had sent a video of the incident via social media. However, we have not seen evidence of this video or have information as to when it was recorded. In November 2025 the landlord acknowledged to us it had failed to log the email or respond to the resident but denied receiving the video. We have not seen the resident followed up on his report. Additionally, he reported no further incidents until 7 months later.
12. While it was unreasonable that the landlord overlooked this communication, we did not see that this impacted the resident’s overall outcome. Additionally, this does not undermine that the landlord had already taken appropriate steps, advised the resident to report criminal damages to the police, liaised with the police and asked them to monitor the area. In the absence of further reports and follow up and given the landlord’s prior action it is difficult to conclude that this omission was significant enough to amount to service failure.
13. The resident reported noise nuisance from a neighbouring property on 30 April 2024. He described banging and drilling noise late in the evening and early in the morning, which prevented him from sleeping in his bedroom. The landlord promptly discussed the issues with him and in line with its good neighbourhood management (GNM) and ASB policy, it categorised the case as D – non urgent case. In keeping with its policies, it also agreed an action plan with the resident.
14. On 3 May 2025 and 10 May 2025, the landlord attempted to contact the neighbour about the noise nuisance and when was unsuccessful, it issued a warning letter. When the resident later reported nuisance of loud coughing and housework, the landlord promptly discussed the matter with the neighbour, who acknowledged coughing but denied causing a nuisance. This was in keeping with its policies to discuss the matter with the alleged perpetrator and write to them when no contact was made.
15. In agreement with the resident, the landlord sent a general noise awareness letter to residents, 3 days after he reported drilling noise from “somewhere in the building” in May 2025. It asked residents to be mindful of noise and the impact it could have on other residents. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was acting on the resident’s reports.
16. After receiving further reports of noise nuisance, the landlord completed a vulnerability risk assessment on 21 May 2025, to understand the impact and associated risks. It rated the impact on the resident as a medium risk. This demonstrated that, in line with its GNM and ASB policies, the landlord recognised the cumulative effect and the impact of the ASB on the resident and took steps to assess and manage the risks.
17. On 29 May 2025 the landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns with him. In line with its policies, it reviewed the action plan and agreed to signpost him to its complaints specialist support, which it did the following day. It also provided an incident booklet to help the resident log further incidents.
18. During the complaint process, the resident also reported noise from the refuge room, which he believed was malicious. CCTV footage showed that the caretaker was responsible, and the landlord took steps to prevent this from happening again. Although this did not constitute ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns.
19. On 4 July 2024, the landlord met with the resident to review his reports and evidence. Although it had agreed to request the noise monitoring equipment, the resident later said he was unsure of the noise source. The landlord then reassessed the case and reviewed the risk assessment, which rated the impact to the resident as very low risk. It then explained to him that, because the noise was sporadic and the source unknown, it could not investigate further and therefore closed the case. It also advised the resident on what to do if the issue reoccurred. Those actions were in line with its ASB and GNM policies.
20. On 18 July 2024, the resident reported that someone had splashed his car with chocolate. The landlord informed the resident that, after reviewing the CCTV footage, it could not identify the individuals responsible because the cameras did not cover the area where he had parked. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and demonstrated that it investigated the matter and kept the resident informed.
21. Overall, the landlord consistently acknowledged the resident’s reports, maintained weekly contact (which we have seen evidence of), provided him with updates and ensured continuity of communication during staff absences. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it demonstrated that it effectively communicated with the resident about the issues.

22. In October 2023 and January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse him due to incidents involving damage to his car and his concerns for his safety. On both occasions, the landlord explained to the resident that while it was investigating his ASB reports and would discuss his housing options with him, there was a high threshold for rehousing based on the ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding his rehousing options.
23. In May 2024 the resident reiterated his request to move. The landlord discussed his housing needs with him and promptly signposted him to its support specialist to help reactivate his housing application and explore a mutual exchange (ME). It also explained its allocation policy and that the current situation did not meet the threshold for additional social need points, or an emergency move. The landlord’s actions were reasonable it considered the resident’s request, promptly informed him of its decisions and the reasons behind it and effectively managed his expectations.
24. On 10 June 2024, the resident submitted his medical form and supportive evidence for his housing application. The landlord wrote to him 3 weeks later to confirm his allocated points and advised that he could start bidding on properties. In line with its allocation policy, it also informed him of his right to appeal the outcome of its housing needs assessment within 21 days. The landlord said the resident did not appeal its decision. These actions were consistent with its allocation policy, which includes assessing housing applications, allocating points based on specific criteria, and informing residents of the outcome and their right to appeal.
25. Between May 2024 and July 2024, the landlord continued to encourage and support the resident with exploring a ME. It also confirmed that it had not identified any vulnerabilities that would prevent the resident from accessing the process or bidding for properties. These were reasonable actions, demonstrating that the landlord understood the resident’s low priority housing status would made it unlikely he would be rehoused through its choice based letting process, and supported him in pursuing alternative rehousing options.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. In this case, the landlord logged the resident’s complaint on the day it became aware of it. The landlord acknowledged the complaints at each stage and provided formal responses within the timescales set out within its customer feedback policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord mostly kept accurate and eligible records but there were some omissions which it acknowledged.

Communication

28. Overall, the landlord demonstrated it effectively communicated with the resident about the issues. It acknowledged and acted on the resident’s requests. It kept the resident informed of the actions taken and its outcomes and took reasonable steps to manage his expectations.