The Wrekin Housing Group Limited (202331668)

Decision
Case ID	202331668
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Wrekin Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in a 1 bedroom flat since 2014. There are vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord about her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and her requests to move to a 2 bedroom home.

What the complaint is about

2.   The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
   2. requests to be transferred to a 2 bedroom property
   3. associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be transferred to a 2 bedroom property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

6. The landlord did take some action to the resident’s reports of ASB including involving the police and support services. But it did not explore alternatives to how to gather evidence at an early stage, when it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not show it had carried out risk assessments relating to the resident or tell the resident when it had closed her case.

Transfer to a 2 bedroom property

7. The landlord told the resident it supported her requests for a transfer and placed her on the waiting list. It outlined the process and offered the resident support. It was consistent in the advice it gave the resident and this was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The associated complaint

8. The landlord recorded and acknowledged the complaints. It informed the resident of the delays in the process and the reason why. But it was delayed in providing the complaint response at stage 1. It added an additional stage in the process, and this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s 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.

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: 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 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to her reports of antisocial behaviour. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 10 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider its process relating to risk assessments following reports of ASB and the provision of information to this Service in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The landlord should consider training for its complaint handling staff to ensure complaints are handled in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 July 2024	The resident made her stage 1 complaint through this Service. She was complaining about: the landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and anti-social behaviour the landlord’s handling of requests to have a different Housing Officer assigned The landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident on the following day.
5 August 2024	The landlord extended the deadline to respond to the complaint.
20 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it apologised the resident had felt cause to complain it had discussed why there were no ASB cases open for the resident and this was because no diary sheets were received it wanted to support the resident with any new reports of ASB it had contacted the police for assistance and other similar reports the resident’s Housing Officer had now changed who would arrange a visit to discuss diary sheets and the noise app the new Housing Officer would also collect documents to support a move to a more suitable property it authorised the resident be put on the transfer waiting list
2 December 2024	The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint. She told the landlord she needed to move home due to issues with her neighbours. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
12 December 2024	The landlord issued its further stage 1 complaint response. It said: it has been unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the resident matters about behaviour of neighbours were seen as historical as no new information reported in last 12 months it had already agreed to consider the resident for a different flat as the resident had also asked to be considered for a 2 bedroom property it asked the resident to do an affordability check to offset concerns about the bedroom tax it invited the resident to forward necessary bank statements as these had not been received it apologised that the resident’s experience had not been what the resident would have liked
10 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
4 February 2025	The landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond due to the availability of the resident.
13 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it was satisfied it had worked with the resident and other agencies about the ASB action had been taken based on evidence available the resident’s Housing Officer had been changed, and this change had been positive an affordability meeting had been rescheduled for 18 March 2025 it had offered the resident the support of the Money Matters team it understood appointments may need to be cancelled or rearranged if further ASB occurs the resident should contact her Housing Officer who would work with the resident on next steps
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to this Service as she remained dissatisfied after the landlord’s complaint responses.

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 resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord’s records show that, prior to the stage 1 complaint, the resident had reported ASB and harassment since 2023, including submitting voice notes. The records show ASB cases which:
   1. had police involvement
   2. were closed because of no evidence
   3. were closed because the resident considered the report resolved
   4. had action plans created and referrals to support services made
10. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB. In its August 2024 response, the landlord stated it had no open ASB cases, as it had not received completed diary sheets, which it required as evidence.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s difficulties in providing evidence due to mental health issues. It confirmed it would offer support for future reports and said the Housing Officer would discuss evidence-gathering tools, including diary sheets and a noise app, during a visit. It also confirmed it had contacted the police and spoken to the neighbours. The resident reported some improvement.
12. In December 2024, following a further complaint, the landlord stated that it considered the ASB reports historical because the resident had not provided new information in the previous 12 months.
13. The landlord’s records show it closed the resident’s ASB case on 2 February 2024. But the landlord’s website states it will close a case when an action plan is complete or no further action is appropriate, and that it will inform residents of the decision and reasons. The landlord has not provided evidence that it notified the resident when closing her case. This was unreasonable, because it did not follow its own policy.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had worked with the resident and partner agencies and that further action required supporting evidence. It maintained that it had taken appropriate steps based on the information available.
15. The landlord’s ASB, Hate Crime and Harassment Policy states it will respond appropriately to reports, take proportionate action, and adopt a victim-centred approach.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord:
    1. conducted risk assessments following the resident’s reports of ASB. A completed risk assessment could have assisted the landlord in further supporting the resident
    2. considered alternative forms of evidence collection before the stage 1 complaint response
17. It is positive the landlord took a multi-agency approach, made support referrals and as a result there was a noted reduction in the ASB being reported by the resident. It is also positive the landlord considered the noise app as an alternative form of evidence during the complaint process. But there is no reason why this couldn’t have been done sooner. The landlord failed to identify this in its complaint process which demonstrates the landlord hadn’t learnt from this complaint.
18. The landlord’s failed to carryout a risk assessments or set out to the resident how it was going to resolve the reports from the start of the case. It did not show it adapted how it gathered evidence or communicated clearly with the resident until the complaint responses. The landlord’s failure to communicate that it had closed her case resulted in the resident thinking she had an open ASB case.  This caused likely distress that a new case was opened.
19. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with its own policies and procedures or show regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.  The compensation ordered reflects the detriment caused to the resident for the combined affects of the minor failures identified.

Complaint	The resident’s requests to be transferred to a 2 bedroom property
Finding	No maladministration

20. At stage 1, the landlord discussed a transfer, agreed to a home visit to collect documents, and approved the resident to go on the waiting list for a 1‑bedroom ground floor flat based on medical need.
21. In December 2024, the resident said she needed to move for safety. The landlord agreed to consider her for a flat but declined a house or bungalow due to household size and lack of medical evidence. It considered a 2‑bedroom request to accommodate her daughter as a carer but required an affordability assessment and bank statements..
22. On 10 January 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord confirmed its support for a move, required a transfer inspection, and explained that a 2‑bedroom property may not be fully covered by benefits. It arranged an affordability assessment, later rescheduled at the resident’s request, and offered support from the Money Matters team. The landlord explained that cancelled or re-arranged appointments could delay progress.
23. In August 2025, the landlord met with the resident and her family, confirmed ongoing property searches, explained why some properties were unsuitable, and arranged a transfer inspection. It backdated the application to the complaint date.
24. The resident moved to a 1‑bedroom bungalow on 3 November 2025.
25. The landlord acted appropriately in managing the transfer request. It explained its processes clearly, acted consistently, and set out the reasons for requiring an affordability assessment.
26. The 15‑month period between the complaint and the move was reasonable given housing availability and the constraints on property allocation.
27. While there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the transfer request, we recognise that the situation was distressing for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

28. On 22 July 2024, the resident raised her complaint through this Service. The landlord acknowledged this on the following day which was appropriate.
29. The landlord informed this Service and the resident of an extension required for the complaint response due to the resident’s health. This was reasonable in the circumstances,
30. On 20 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 12 working days from the extension. While this was a minor delay, it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
31. The resident raised a further complaint about one of the same matters. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
32. On 12 December 2024, the landlord issued its further stage 1 complaint response. It is unclear why the landlord started the complaint process at stage 1 again.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy does not set a timeframe for escalation. As the resident’s further complaint repeated the earlier issues, the landlord should have progressed it to the next stage. Restarting the process delayed the resident’s access to this Service. We have made a learning point on this.
34. After the resident escalated the further complaint to stage 2 through this Service, the landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
35. On 4 February 2025, the landlord told the resident it had extended the date for responding to the complaint based on the resident’s availability. It signposted the resident to this Service if she had any questions about the extension. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
36. On 13 February 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 8 working days from the extension.
37. Although it communicated appropriately, made efforts to engage the resident, and explained extensions, it delayed its stage 1 response and unnecessarily restarted the process. This caused avoidable delay. We have ordered the landlord to apologise.

Learning

General

38. As previously mentioned, the landlord started the complaints process again at stage 1 rather than escalating it to stage 2. A landlord should ensure its complaints process is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and it does not delay residents in accessing this Service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. As mentioned in this report we did not see any evidence of risk assessments relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB). A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

40. There was communication with resident by the landlord relating to ASB reports. But it could have been more proactive in responding to the resident as it knew about her vulnerabilities. A landlord should have processes in place to ensure effective and timely communication with its residents.