Two Rivers Housing (202524626)

Background

1. The property is a house. The resident says he has reported concerns about the condition of a neighbouring property since 2016. This included internal hoarding, overgrown gardens, rubbish, pests and fire hazards.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the neighbour’s property.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his concerns about the neighbour’s property.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord taking action to achieve a long-term resolution to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s property. This delay prolonged the negative impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged this and offered appropriate redress for the period of our investigation.
6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the 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.

Recommendations

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

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 resident has said he raised concerns about the neighbour’s property since the start of his tenancy in 2016. The landlord’s complaints policy says it may not consider complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago. It says it may consider matters that occurred more than 12 months ago where there is good reason to do so. The landlord’s complaint responses are not clear on the scope of its investigation, as it should have said what period it was assessing.
8. Our investigation considers events up to 12 months before the complaint was raised in September 2025. Anything that happened before September 2024 is considered for context but not formally assessed as part of the investigation. We are aware the resident made a complaint in 2021, which completed the landlord’s complaint process. As it was not brought to us at the time, that period is not within the scope of this investigation.
9. The neighbour’s property is owned by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for investigating and addressing the resident’s concerns about its condition. The landlord visited the neighbour multiple times, liaised with other agencies and obtained an injunction in March 2025. These were all appropriate actions considering the concerns raised, the circumstances of the neighbour, and their response to the issues.
10. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it delayed in dealing with the matter. This was appropriate as the actions the landlord did take failed to permanently resolve the matter. This failure was not fully attributable to the landlord, as the neighbour declined to engage with it on multiple occasions. However, considering the length of time the issues had been ongoing and the historic attempts to work with the neighbour, the landlord should have considered enforcement action sooner. It was only in September 2025 that the landlord served a NOSP and progressed possession proceedings. This was after the situation had declined and there had been a Police incident at the neighbour’s property the previous month.
11. We recognise the challenging nature of this case, and that the landlord was attempting to resolve the matter by other means, including seeking an injunction. This was appropriate considering the circumstances of the case and the condition of the neighbour’s property. However, the landlord had previously obtained an injunction in 2023, and this had not successfully resolved the matter or lead to long-term improvements in the condition of the neighbour’s property. Therefore, the landlord should have considered possession action alongside its injunction application in early 2025as a way to permanently resolve the matter. Its failure to do so was upsetting for the resident and he said this negatively affected his and his wife’s health and well-being.
12. The resident raised concerns about hazards including pests and fire risks. He said the landlord was required to take action under the Housing Act 2004 in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards in housing.
13. The requirements of this legislation are for councils, particularly environmental health departments, not housing associations such as the landlord. It was not legally required to assess hazards in accordance with the HHSRS. The only requirement of a housing association under the HHSRS is, if a council issues it with a notice, it must act to remove the hazard. That did not happen in this case, as the landlord was in contact with the environmental health department and it was satisfied the landlord was taking appropriate action to address the issues.
14. The landlord did have a responsibility to ensure it took reasonable action to assess and manage any risk presented by the neighbour’s property. The resident said it did not formally document its risk assessment in respect of fire safety concerns. The landlord is not required to complete formal fire risk assessments on individual properties. Therefore, it is reasonable that it does not have a standard form to record this.
15. The landlord was in contact with the fire service and national grid about potential fire risks. It also took action to address them, including seeking an injunction. We acknowledge this was worrying for the resident. However, the landlord took reasonable action to manage any risks as well as liaising with the appropriate specialist agencies. While it was not obligated to document its management of the risks in a set way, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm in writing to the resident how these were being managed and monitored. This would have offered additional reassurance that it was taking his concerns seriously. Its failure to do so left the resident feeling worried that it was not properly managing the risks.
16. The resident wanted the landlord to clear the neighbour’s overgrown gardens to remove hazards. During a visit in October 2025 the landlord told the resident it could not remove or clear the external areas of the neighbour’s property without a court order. This was correct. The resident has said the landlord should have done more to progress this. The landlord obtained an injunction in March 2025 but, due to non-engagement by the resident, it was not successful in resolving the issues. While frustrating for the resident that the issues continued, the landlord did all it could to clear the areas with the powers available to it.
17. The resident has asked the landlord to share details of multi-agency meetings and actions taken. The landlord has told him it cannot share this for data protection reasons. We cannot assess whether the landlord’s decision was reasonable, as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to assess. The resident can raise his concerns with the ICO for further consideration, if he wishes.
18. The resident feels the landlord did not properly safeguard him and his wife. In addition to the actions already set out, the landlord treated pests in the property, arranged a reassurance visit from the fire brigade, kept in regular contact and offered a temporary move until it had fully resolved the matter. These were appropriate actions to reassure the resident and address his concerns, although we acknowledge they were not wholly successful. However, the landlord was limited in what it could do because of the neighbour’s actions. Ultimately, the landlord took reasonable steps to safeguard the resident and his wife in challenging circumstances.
19. The landlord served a NOSP on the neighbour on a Friday in September 2025. It recognised this could escalate the neighbour’s behaviour and took appropriate action to inform partner agencies including the Police and fire service. After it served the NOSP the landlord did not contact the resident until the following week. This was inappropriate as it should have contacted him sooner to check for any issues and offer reassurance. The landlord acknowledged this failure in the stage 2 response and confirmed it had taken learning from this, which was positive.
20. The landlord has acknowledged delays in its handling of this matter and taken action to evict the neighbour. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay up to £1,000 for failures that have a major impact. This is where there have been serious and/or repeated failures that result in prolonged stress, disruption or loss of facility.
21. The landlord apologised for its failures and offered £2,000 compensation. This offer was double the maximum amount set out in its compensation policy and shows it recognised the significant impact on the resident. We acknowledge the resident has been impacted by this matter since 2016, but our assessment of the landlord’s offer is for the period from September 2024 only.
22. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are 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.
23. Considering the full circumstances of the matter, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend it pays him the £2,000 already offered. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
24. The resident told the landlord his and his wife’s health were negatively impacted by this matter. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that its compensation offer did not cover impact on health as this was more appropriately handled as a personal injury claim via its insurers. This was in line with its complaints policy which says any claim or complaint for personal injury will be excluded from its complaints process and dealt with as an insurance claim. For the same reason, we cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill health. We have considered if the redress offered was fair and reasonable for the general distress and inconvenience experienced and concluded it was for the period of our investigation.
25. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s ongoing handling of this matter, mainly that it has not cleared the external areas of hazards, despite the neighbour being evicted in February 2026. Our investigation covers the period up to the stage 2 response. Any more recent concerns about the landlord’s actions need to be raised as a new complaint and responded to via the landlord’s internal process first. As the resident has ongoing concerns, it is important that the landlord tells him what is happening and keeps him updated on what it is doing and why. Therefore, we recommend the landlord sends a written update to the resident confirming why it has not cleared the external areas to date and when it expects to do so.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 September 2025, 5 working days after it was raised. It sent the stage 1 response in 20 working days, which was over the policy timescale. However, on 17 September 2025 the landlord agreed with the resident an extension to the deadline and confirmed this in writing. It said it would respond by 8 October 2025, which was an extension of 10 working days.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy says if it cannot respond within 10 working days at stage 1, it will contact the resident and may extend the timescale by 10 working days. Any extension will be confirmed in writing. The landlord complied with this and subsequently met the extended deadline. Therefore, this was not a failure.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 October 2025, 4 working days after the complaint was escalated. It sent the respond 20 working days later. Both were in line with the committed timescales set out in its policy.
30. The resident said the landlord had not complied with points 5.14 and 5.15 of the Code. The landlord considered this at stage 2 and explained that these points relate to its management of unacceptable or unreasonable behaviour by residents where restrictions need to be put in place. It said this was not relevant to the resident’s complaint and so it did not believe it had breached these sections of the Code. This was reasonable and we agree the landlord has not breached these parts of the Code.
31. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and addressed the resident’s concerns. We acknowledge the resident did not agree with the outcome, but this alone is not indicative of poor complaint handling. The landlord managed the complaints fairly and in line with its complaint policy. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

32. Where the landlord has taken action to resolve issues but this has been unsuccessful, it should consider actions to achieve a permanent long-term resolution. It should progress this at the earliest opportunity to minimse the length of time problems go on for and any negative impact on other residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. No record keeping issues were identified in this investigation. The records provided were sufficient for us to complete the investigation.

Communication

34. The landlord kept in regular contact with the resident and updated him. It should provide written updates on actions taken to manage risk so residents are reassured that it is taking these seriously. It should make timely follow up contact after action is taken that may escalate behaviour to get updates and offer reassurance.