From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Together Housing Association Limited (202416577)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416577

Together Housing Association Limited

27 August 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including its response to his concerns about discrimination and his information being shared.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the property. He moved out of the property on 7 April 2024. The property was a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records state the resident has a mental health disability and autism.
  2. On 29 October 2023 the resident reported his neighbour was playing loud music and doing housework at 7am.
  3. On 30 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He said the ASB issues had been going on the whole time he had lived at the property. He felt his rights as an autistic person were being ignored and dismissed.
  4. The landlord recorded a complaint for the resident on 3 January 2024. On 5 January 2024 the resident confirmed his complaint was about:

a.     His neighbourhood officer was related to and well known to his neighbour. There was a conflict of interest.

b.     His neighbourhood officer was communicating with him on a “non work phone” so the resident’s reports did not have to be logged or actioned.

c.      The neighbourhood officer was trying to find evidence to evict him and protect his neighbour.

d.     The neighbour had been allowed to behave however they wanted to.

e.     The neighbourhood officer was sharing confidential information with the neighbour.

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 January 2024. It said:

a.     The neighbourhood officer did not have a son with the name the resident alleged. It had found no evidence that the landlord had shared information about the resident with his neighbour.

b.     The mobile phone number the resident had contacted the neighbourhood officer on was a work phone.

c.      It had identified a recording keeping failure. The resident’s ASB reports between March 2023 and November 2023 had not been logged on the landlord’s system. It apologised and said the officer involved would receive further training.

d.     The resident had been assigned a new neighbourhood officer.

e.     It recognised the ongoing situation had had a negative impact on the resident’s mental health. It offered the resident a move to another property. It said it would work with the resident’s support worker.

  1. On 30 January 2024 the resident’s support worker escalated his complaint on his behalf. The resident complained that:

a.     The resident’s text messages sent to the landlord had been shared with his neighbour. He said he had heard the neighbour read out texts and mock the contents.

b.     He had been discriminated against as the neighbourhood officer told neighbours when she was visiting, so the neighbour could go out and not make noise.

c.      He wanted action taken against his neighbours.

d.     He wanted to know why the landlord allowed neighbours to harass, intimidate, abuse, throw eggs and conspire to murder him. He said the landlord did nothing and actively encouraged the behaviour.

e.     He did not feel retraining of the landlord’s staff was enough.

  1. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 March 2024, it said:

a.     The neighbourhood officer did have a son but the landlord had no evidence that he was known to the neighbour. The conversation the resident said he overheard could have been a discussion about anyone. It said it had no evidence to take the matter further.

b.     The police would have responsibility to investigate the resident’s belief that there was a conspiracy to murder him. It said it was aware the resident had contacted the police and they had not taken any action. The landlord said it had no evidence to support the allegation.

c.      A previous case of ASB was opened in August 2022 and closed in September 2022 with agreement from the resident as the noise was quieter.

d.     Contact with the resident about ASB between December 2022 to October 2023 had not been recorded on the landlord’s system. The resident had not provided evidence during that time. It apologised.

e.     The resident had since reported noise issues with a different neighbour to his neighbourhood officer. The landlord told the resident to record incidents and share with the officer.

f.        It had not approached the resident regarding his tenancy conduct. The landlord said it could see no evidence of discrimination.

g.     The resident could move to a one-bedroom bungalow. It was the resident’s choice if he wanted to move properties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including its response to his concerns about discrimination and his information being shared.

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states it aims to:

a.     “Conduct a risk of harm assessment at the onset of an ASB case and reassess if circumstances change.

b.     Provide a single point of contact.

c.      Agree an action plan and regularly review throughout the case.

d.     Provide regular updates, even if there is little or no progress to update.

e.     Refer and sign post appropriate support services where necessary.

f.        Work to manage expectations by agreeing actions that are achievable and realistic.”

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states discretionary compensation payments would reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance, distress or annoyance suffered by not putting a matter right and the extent to which the landlord had been directly responsible.
  2. We acknowledge that this situation was distressing for the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures. We consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken.
  4. The resident’s ASB reports from March 2023 to October 2023 were not recorded on the landlord’s system. The landlord’s ASB record keeping was inappropriate. The landlord provided the resident with an apology in its complaint responses. It was positive for the landlord to be open with the resident about its record keeping failing, however we do not view this as adequate redress. This is because the resident’s reports were not addressed in line with its ASB policy during that time. The landlord is unable to evidence that it supported the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if it was appropriate to offer the resident compensation, to rebuild trust and put things right.
  5. It is clear the resident felt the landlord was not doing enough about his ASB reports. He told the landlord he had been speaking with his neighbourhood officer and it had resulted in no action being taken. It would have caused the resident distress to hear that the landlord did not have a record of these conversations.
  6. The landlord created an ASB case and completed a risk assessment in October 2023. The resident was assessed as medium risk. It was appropriate for the landlord to log an ASB case to keep a record of its investigation and actions.
  7. In the resident’s ASB report, he said the noise levels were “slowly pushing me to suicide”. He also told the landlord he had autism and struggled with sensory issues. The landlord said the neighbourhood officer would discuss his needs with him and see if it could support with any referrals. The landlord noted the case was opened for investigation due to the impact on the resident’s mental health.
  8. The landlord has told us that it opened a ASB case and the neighbourhood officer engaged with the resident offering “assurances”. It said a decision was made to monitor and support the resident before discussing the allegations with the neighbour.
  9. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord proactively monitored the case. There is no evidence the landlord had any contact with the resident about his ASB concerns during the case. The evidence shows that following the opening of the case, the landlord:

a.     Completed 2 “case officer action plans”. There are no details what, if any, action was taken.

b.     Closed the ASB case on 11 January 2024.

  1. The landlord did not manage the resident’s ASB case appropriately and this was not in line with its policy. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and consider any referrals for support. It did not create an action plan with the resident. There is no evidence it took any action to investigate, such as issuing incident diaries. It did not have regular contact with the resident or set his expectations. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident had told the landlord he was struggling with his mental health.
  2. We have seen evidence the landlord did communicate with the resident’s support worker after the ASB case had been closed. This was following the support worker requesting to work jointly with the neighbourhood officer. There is no evidence however that the landlord considered liasing with partner agencies and providing support to the resident sooner. This was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord did not review its actions taken during the ASB case in its complaint response. While it was appropiate to apologise for its poor record keeping prior to the ASB case, it missed opportunities to consider all aspects of its ASB handling. It therefore did not provide a full response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of action taken by the landlord. This would have made the resident feel his concerns had not been taken seriously.

Discrimination and the resident’s information being shared.

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
  2. We expect landlords to take a resident’s concerns about being treated differently seriously, investigate and provide a response.
  3. In this case, the resident said that he had been treated differently because his neighbourhood officer had shared information regarding him and his ASB reports with his neighbour. He said his neighbourhood officer’s son was known to his neighbour and, because of this, the neighbour was given preferential treatment. The resident felt his neighbourhood officer was trying to find reasons to evict him, to “cover up” for the neighbour. He said the landlord did nothing to protect him and encouraged “a conspiracy to murder”.
  4. As part of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s concerns it:

a.     Spoke to the neighbourhood officer. The landlord has told us that a full record of the conversation was not input on the case management system due to data protection concerns. While the landlord should be mindful of data protection requirements, it should have measures in place to be able to record sensitive data appropriately. We have however seen evidence that a conversation took place.

b.     Checked the mobile number that the resident had raised concerns about. It confirmed to the resident that this was a work mobile number.

c.      Gave the resident a different neighbourhood officer. This was positive for the landlord to do as the resident had raised concerns specifically about his neighbourhood officer.

d.     Discussed the resident’s concerns at length during a telephone call. The landlord asked the resident questions about why he felt how he did. This was positive for the landlord to do, to gather further information for its investigation. The landlord also set the resident’s expectations by explaining that if there was no evidence to support some of his allegations then it would be limited on what it could do.

  1. The evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately. In its complaint responses, it provided details of its investigation and gave reasons for its position that it had not shared his information or discriminated against him. It was clear with the resident that it had a lack of evidence to support the resident’s concerns. The evidence shows the landlord did take the resident’s reports seriously, investigate and provide him with a response.
  2. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and how distressing the situation was for him. However, throughout our investigation, we have seen no evidence that the resident’s data was shared outside of the landlord or that he was treated differently.
  3. Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including his concerns of discrimination and the landlord sharing information. This is because:

a.     The evidence does not show the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint of ASB promptly and there is a lack of records to demonstrate what action it took.

b.     The landlord missed opportunities to provide support to the resident. It did not show it considered his vulnerabilities.

c.      The landlord missed opportunities to fully review its response to the resident’s ASB concerns in its complaint process.

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation to the resident. This is to recognise the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been a moderate impact.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states: “There are specific instances when [the landlord] won’t accept a complaint. If we do decide not to accept a complaint, we will provide a detailed explanation to the resident explaining why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Housing Ombudsman Service.”
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 December 2023 and said it would not raise a formal complaint unless the resident provided evidence of the alleged data breach. It said it had already denied the allegation and without evidence could not take the complaint further. It told the resident “I don’t want to waste your time by raising a formal complaint and you getting the same response”. The landlord’s approach was unreasonable and outside of its policy. The landlord delayed logging a complaint for the resident. It did not provide a detailed explanation of why it was not accepting the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord had completed any investigation at that time. This would have made the resident feel his concerns were not being taken seriously.
  3. On 3 January 2024 the landlord said it would log a complaint about the handling of the resident’s ASB complaint. When acknowledging the complaint, it told the resident that it did not believe there was any evidence of a breach of data protection. While the landlord may have been trying to set the resident’s expectations, the response seemed to suggest that the landlord had prejudged its position without investigation.
  4. The landlord did not provide an acknowledgement to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. Its complaints policy states it would do so within 5 working days of receiving the request.
  5. The landlord stage 2 response was slightly delayed and was 5 working days over the 20 working days timescale outlined in its complaints policy.
  6. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because the landlord:

a.     Delayed logging the resident’s original complaint.

b.     Caused the resident distress by appearing to prejudge the outcome of part of his complaint.

c.      Did not provide an acknowledgment to the resident’s escalation request.

d.     Provided its stage 2 response slightly outside of its complaints policy.

e.     Did not recognise its complaint handling failings. It missed opportunities to put things right.

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the landlord’s compensation policy where there had been a minor impact of a short duration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including its response to his concerns of discrimination and his information being shared.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Pay the resident a total compensation of £450, broken down as follows:

  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including its response to his concerns about discrimination and his information being shared.
  2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
  3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.

b.     Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified.

c.      Provide evidence to us that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to maintain accurate records in relation to its ASB cases, specifically relating to contact with residents so that it can demonstrate and support the decisions it makes.