Thrive Homes Limited (202400096)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400096

Thrive Homes Limited

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident has moved from the property, but at the time of the complaint the resident and her partner were assured joint tenants of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in April 2019 and ended in January 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord said that it did not hold any information regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities or that of her household. However, it is evident that it became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities during the investigation.
On 20 February 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint to her landlord by telephone. The landlord acknowledged and summarised her complaint as:
1. She had experienced ongoing ASB since 2021 from 3 different families. The ASB included drug activity, noise complaints including domestic violence and an ongoing police presence within the locality of her property.
2. She had sent numerous emails to her landlord and requested call backs but had not received a response and no action had been taken.
3. She found the ASB “triggered” her, and her husband had taken days off work due to the ongoing nuisance.
4. The landlord’s poor response to her reports of ASB resulted in her moving from the property and she wanted to be compensated for her costs.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. the outcome of the investigation was clear, there had been a service failure, and it had not delivered the standard of service that was expected.
2. the service failure occurred because of a lack of communication and there had been several occasions where it had failed to respond to the resident.
3. due to a lack of ASB evidence there were times where no action was taken and that it was not confident that the outcome had been fully explained to the resident.
4. an ASB action plan had not been implemented and although it had spoken to the neighbours involved, it could have done more.
5. it recognised that the resident felt she had no other alternative than to move and that it had a detrimental effect on her health.
6. it apologised and acknowledged that its actions would have left the resident frustrated, upset, and offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
On 5 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She escalated the complaint because she felt that £250 compensation for the upset, inconvenience, and cost of having to move was not enough.
On 2 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It referred to the same findings in its stage 1 response and said that:
1. the resident had requested compensation of 4 weeks credit to her rent account and 50% of her moving costs at a total of £4269.00.
2. it acknowledged there had been a service failure and it had not always followed its policies and procedures.
3. it was aware that the resident arranged for a management move with the local council and had to pay rent for 2 properties whilst the move took place. As a goodwill gesture, it offered 4 weeks rent refund of £518.40.
4. it should have completed or adhered to an action plan. However, the actions taken against the neighbours would not necessarily have been different.
5. it acknowledged its failures, apologised, and referred to our remedies guidance along with its own schedule of compensation to provide redress for the resident.
6. confirmed its total offer for compensation of £768.40, which comprised of £518.40 for a rent refund and £250.00 for inconvenience and distress as offered within its stage 1 response.
In her complaint to this service, the resident said she remained unhappy with the landlords handling of ASB. She stated that the landlord should have dealt with the ASB, and she wanted to be compensated for having to move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident since 2021, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the recent reports from October 2022 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her vulnerabilities and subsequent impact on her health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
We can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, any advice or guidance it offered, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where we find a failing in these areas, we will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 March 2024, it acknowledged numerous failings including its poor communication throughout the case, its failure to complete an action plan or risk assessment, in not keeping the resident completely up to date with any action and relevant timescales, and for not using intervention methods at an earlier point. These failings are not disputed and therefore it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord has offered appropriate redress for its failings in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s ASB policy highlights the procedure it should follow and tools it should use to manage cases of ASB. This includes risk assessments, action plans and referrals to other agencies where appropriate. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it responds to complaints in line with the severity of the incident. For a minor ASB complaint it should make contact within 5 days and take agreed action within 10 working days, for serious ASB complaints, it should make contact within 3 working days and take agreed action within 5 working days and for very serious ASB complaints, it should make contact and act within 1 working day.
The ASB policy states that the landlord will:
1. respond sensitively to the victim.
2. offer advice and signpost to appropriate third sector support for victims of ASB.
3. respond to ASB reports in line with severity of the incident.
4. carry out a risk assessment where necessary.
5. involve residents in the action plan and communicate reasonably.
The resident reported ASB in October 2022 and the landlord opened a case. Between October 2022 and March 2024, it is evident that the resident telephoned her landlord approximately 25 times to report ASB or request a call back. The ASB reported was concerning noise, illegal activities, which included drug taking and reports of domestic violence. The landlord was infrequent with its communication with the resident and did not take any action to understand the extent of the ASB. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of regard for the complaints and the detrimental impact it had on the resident.
On 18 November 2022, the landlord suggested that it would send ASB block letters to neighbours and diary sheets to the resident. The evidence provided to us suggests that the landlord did not complete the intended actions and did not take any action in relation to the reported ASB until January 2023. In its ASB policy, it states that it is important that complainants and victims of ASB are clear about the circumstances in which it can intervene and the sanctions available. It will not raise expectations where it cannot act. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it would act and therefore it has failed to comply with its ASB policy.
It is evident that on 25 October 2022 and again on 21 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the domestic violence she witnessed had “triggered” her. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will conduct a risk assessment where necessary, however there is no evidence that this was carried out. A risk assessment would have determined if the resident required additional support or a referral to other agencies. This was a failure on the landlord’s part to address the resident’s vulnerabilities and act in accordance with its policy.
The timeline provided by the landlord suggests that when an ASB case is opened there should be regular contact which progresses from weekly to monthly contact until the case is closed. It is evident that when a case was opened by the landlord, it was sporadic in its contact with the resident and did not have accurate administrative records to demonstrate that it had taken any measures as outlined within its ASB policy.
In order for a landlord to act against perpetrators of ASB, it must be sure that it would be a justified and proportionate response and have the evidence available to it. On 3 January 2023, the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets via email and requested that she complete them. It is noted that the resident did not wish to complete the diary sheets and requested that the landlord contact the police for evidence. This was a reasonable request from the landlord, it would have allowed the resident to record the dates, times, and the impact these events had on her. By gathering this information, a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the situation could have been established and would have supported the landlord to evidence the ASB for targeted action.
In this case, it is evident that the landlord faced challenges in evidencing the ASB. On 18 January 2023, it confirmed to the resident that a police disclosure had been applied for. Within an internal email on 10 August 2023 the landlord said that there had been no information shared as a result of its discussions with the police that could be acted upon. While requesting the police disclosure was appropriate action for the landlord to take, it is not evidenced that the outcome of this was provided to the resident. This was unreasonable and should have been communicated to the resident sooner, which would have managed her expectations.
On 1 June 2023 via email, following the residents request for an update, the landlord told the resident that it had not received the level of ASB reports that it would expect in a situation described by the resident. As a result, it arranged for ASB surveys to be sent to all residents within the locality to evidence the ASB. It is noted that whilst this should have been carried out earlier in the complaint process, it was right of the landlord to support the resident by using its ASB tools to obtain the evidence it required.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord decided to close the ASB case. This is because the landlord felt that no evidence had been provided, no ASB had been reported that could be actioned, and there had not been any targeted incidents at the address. It is not evidenced that this was communicated to the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord failed to involve the resident and therefore did not comply with its ASB policy in relation to reasonable communication.
On 26 July 2023 the resident reported further ASB issues, a case was opened and ASB was reported until the resident moved in January 2024. Again, it is evident that the contact from the landlord was sporadic, there is no evidence that any action was taken and the resident had to continually chase for updates. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy.
It is evident that the resident requested that the landlord consider a management transfer. It agreed for the resident and her household to be considered; however, it said she would be unlikely to meet the criteria because of a lack of ASB evidence. Due to the resident’s rehousing requirements, it is reported that she declined the option to be heard by the management panel. The resident moved from the property and was re-housed by the local council, she said that the landlord should compensate her for her moving costs. There is no information contained within the landlord’s policies either its ASB or lettings policy that indicates that the landlord has an obligation to pay for the resident’s removal costs. However, the landlord said that whilst it is not policy, it offered a goodwill gesture of 4 weeks rent refund to cover the notice period whilst the resident moved.
Overall, as acknowledged by the landlord there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess if the resident’s complaints were remedied fairly in the circumstances.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response and confirmed again within its stage 2 response, the landlord identified failings around its communication with the resident and its non-compliance with its ASB policy. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned. It said that all future ASB cases are to be managed in line with its ASB policy and for its officers to make regular contact and complete case reviews to ensure that the action being taken is appropriate and timely.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will always try to get things right first time but when mistakes are made, a range of remedies will be considered to put things right. When considering redress in the form of compensation, the landlord offers a tier system which details payment increments. At the top of the scale for serious mishandling it offers £700.00+ for failures, which include mishandling of an antisocial behaviour case leading to exacerbation of tenant relations.
The landlord demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. Within the internal complaints process it acknowledged its failings, apologised, suggested ways to improve its service and offered compensation. The level of compensation offered is proportionate to the acknowledged failings and is in line with its policy and the Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration. These are failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on the resident. The landlord offered £768.40 in compensation, which comprised of:
1. £518.40 for a rent refund.
2. £250 for inconvenience and distress
This Service therefore finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation as offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses of £768.40.
1. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
The landlord is to send evidence of how lessons have been learned and shared with its staff and what improvements have been made to ensure policy compliance.