The Community Housing Group Limited (202524450)

Decision
Case ID	202524450
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Community Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has been reporting ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her next‑door neighbour since April 2024. She feels the landlord ignored the situation and failed to provide a resolution.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Service failure for its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord accepted that its communication had been poor, that it failed to complete a vulnerability risk assessment, and that it should not have closed the resident’s ASB case in May 2025. However, it opened a new ASB case and offered appropriate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused up to the end of its complaints procedure. The landlord also demonstrated evidence of learning from the complaint.
5. There was a delay in the landlord accepting the resident’s complaint. As the ASB case had been closed in error at that time, this delay caused additional inconvenience and worry for the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or provide suitable redress for it within its complaints process.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to set out what action it is taking in line with its ASB policy to resolve the on-going issues being reported by the resident about her neighbour. This should include: An agreed action plan. Including advice on what options are available to the resident, such as mediation, noise suppression solutions, noise monitoring equipment, and multi-agency meetings.    A vulnerability risk assessment. Advice and information on what support is available, including any external resources and organisations.   The landlord should confirm the above in writing to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 May 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord, explaining that noise from her neighbour was affecting both her and her son’s health and wellbeing.   She also raised other issues in her complaint. However, when we spoke with her on 9 February 2026, she confirmed that she wanted our investigation to focus on the ASB.
27 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and partially upheld the complaint. It explained: It attempted to install noise‑monitoring equipment in the resident’s home on 8 May 2025, but the resident was unwell and did not contact it to arrange a new appointment. While its neighbourhood coordinators change regularly, it accepted that it should have informed the resident about the most recent change. It contacted the resident on 22 July 2024, when she reported that the noise from her neighbour had subsided and agreed to close the ASB case. A new ASB case was opened in December 2024 after the resident raised concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour. This case was closed on 29 May 2025 due to a lack of contact from both parties. It failed to follow up in December 2024 when the resident’s Ring doorbell camera was damaged. It apologised and said it would review its processes and remind staff of the importance of providing updates. It had since maintained regular contact with the resident through calls, office discussions and home visits, and had continued to support her with the ongoing issues involving her neighbour.
29 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint, stating that the landlord had taken too long to address the issues with her neighbour. She said she had to repeatedly chase for updates, felt dismissed by staff, and believed her concerns were overlooked during the change in Neighbourhood Coordinator. She was also unhappy that her case was closed on 29 May 2025 despite the issues continuing.
30 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and partially upheld the complaint. It said: The ASB reports made between April and June 2024 were managed in line with its ASB policy and procedures. There was no evidence that it responded to the resident’s ASB reports in May 2024 or February 2025. The ASB case opened in December 2025 was monitored and handled in accordance with its ASB policy, but it was closed without noise monitoring equipment being installed. It had signposted the resident to the police and other relevant agencies, but it could not confirm whether a risk assessment had been completed to understand the impact on the resident and her family. It had opened a new ASB case in July 2025. It would award £100 compensation, made up of: £50 for closing the ASB case without resolution. £50 for poor communication and lack of updates.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident bought her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and she said the issues with her neighbour had not been resolved.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The resident has been reporting problems with her neighbour since April 2024, including loud music, shouting, and issues involving their dog. She said the noise was impacting her and her son’s sleep and well-being.
7. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to all of the resident’s ASB reports, it failed to complete a vulnerability risk assessment, and it should not have closed the ASB case in May 2025. We therefore need to consider whether the landlord has provided an adequate remedy to reflect the impact of these failings on the resident and her household, and whether it acted in line with our dispute‑resolution principles in putting things right.
8. To do this, we considered both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
9. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered her £100 compensation for its poor communication and for closing her ASB case in error. It demonstrated learning from the complaint as it explained that staff would receive additional training to ensure ASB policies and procedures were followed correctly and that communication remained consistent. The landlord also said it would ensure ASB cases were only closed once the resident had confirmed the issue was resolved or had not reoccurred, and that it would review its ASB processes to prevent residents from chasing updates.
10. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and with our remedies guidance, which states that £100–£600 is appropriate where there have been multiple service failures, delays in resolving the issue, and moderate to high levels of distress and inconvenience. The amount offered was sufficient to reflect the impact on the resident up to the end of the complaints process.
11. The landlord opened a new ASB case in July 2025 following another incident reported by the resident. It did not investigate its handling of this case within the complaint response because the case had only just been opened at the time. As we must allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate and resolve issues through its complaints process before we consider them, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of this new ASB case or any recent ASB incidents as part of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord responds to the new case, she will need to submit a further complaint to the landlord.
12. While it was appropriate that the landlord did not investigate the newly opened ASB case, it would have helped to alleviate the resident’s concerns if it had explained what actions it intended to take to resolve the on-going ASB issues. Providing this information would have helped manage her expectations and ensure transparency about the next steps. The landlord should have also confirmed that a vulnerability risk assessment had been completed following its failure to do so previously. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her current ASB case and make sure these issues have been addressed in line with its ASB case management procedure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

13. In its complaint responses, the landlord stated that the resident made her complaint on 9 May 2025. However, the evidence also shows that a complaint was made on 7 June 2025. These inconsistent records indicate poor record keeping.
14. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 June 2025, 25 working days after it was made, which was outside its target of 5 working days. Although the landlord recognised this delay when corresponding with our service, it did not acknowledge this or offer appropriate redress within its complaints procedure.
15. After this point, the landlord improved its communication with the resident. It met with her to discuss the complaint and issued its responses within the agreed timescales. Its responses were detailed and demonstrated that it had thoroughly investigated all aspects of the complaint.
16. Overall, the landlord handled the complaint well, but it failed to acknowledge or provide sufficient redress for the delay in accepting the complaint. Although the delay may have had limited direct impact, it added to the resident’s inconvenience and worry, particularly given that the ASB case had been incorrectly closed at that time and she was not receiving any support with the on-going issues with her neighbour. We have therefore made a finding of service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning 

17. The landlord completed a thorough self‑assessment and identified learning points at both complaint stages. The Ombudsman welcomes its recognition of the need to improve response times, follow up reports of ASB more proactively and consider vulnerability factors. It is positive that these lessons will be built into staff training and reviews of its processes, showing a commitment to improvement. Although the failings significantly affected the resident, the landlord’s willingness to learn and implement practical changes is encouraging. The Ombudsman expects these actions to be delivered and sustained to prevent recurrence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord needs to maintain accurate and complete ASB and communication records, ensuring visits and completed actions are clearly logged. It should also consider how its processes can flag overdue actions and link all relevant information to the resident’s case to ensure it is not closing ASB cases before there has been a resolution.

Communication

19. When the landlord has an open ASB case, it must provide clear, timely, and regular updates, including written action plans so that expectations and next steps are transparent. Although the landlord acknowledged that there were occasions when it did not respond to the resident, the evidence shows that it was generally in regular contact with her about the issues she reported. It was also positive to note that the landlord carried out regular home visits, as face‑to‑face communication can help residents feel heard.