WATMOS Community Homes (202426754)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426754

WATMOS Community Homes

31 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Request to be moved.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 15 February 2013. The property is a 1 bedroom low rise flat.
The landlord’s ‘getting to know you form,’ also dated 15 February 2013, notes the resident has anaphylaxis, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression and histaminosis.
During December 2023 the landlord opened an Antisocial Behaviour Case (ASB) in response to the resident’s reports. In January 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour had banged on her door and “threatened to kill her.” The matter was also reported to the police.
On 13 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about how its tenancy officer had handled her reports about her neighbour. She said it had a duty of care to ensure she was housed safely based on a health and safety need arising from her disability. She set out the details of an incident of ASB caused by her neighbour the previous weekend. She asked to be put on the emergency housing list. She also made a request for a reasonable adjustment.
During a call with the landlord on 28 August 2024 the resident said her neighbour was “pouring” chemicals down the drain which was affecting her. This was because she could have an adverse reaction to “even the smallest amount of certain chemicals.” She also reported other forms of ASB caused by her neighbour. She repeated her request to be moved.
On 3 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it was investigating the resident’s reports of her neighbour putting “toxic” chemicals down the drain in line with its ASB Policy. It also confirmed that it did not hold an open housing register and the local authority had 100% nomination rights. However, it said it would contact the resident to discuss presenting a case to the local authority’s emergency panel on medical grounds.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 January 2025 to advise that her reports about her neighbour were “never resolved.” She requested a separate pipe system which would prevent toxic fumes entering the property.
On 13 March 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It was unable to tell residents what products to use in their home. However, it had passed on the resident’s request that her neighbour use nonchemical products.
2. It set out its investigation into the incident which occurred on 22 January 2024. It was satisfied that its response was in line with its ASB Procedure and therefore upheld its stage 1 response.
3. It confirmed the position with regards to the resident’s request for a transfer. It set out the reasons it was unable to resubmit a case to the local authority’s emergency panel or offer a management move.
4. Its surveyor had been in touch to request photos of the kitchen and bathroom plumbing. Once he had them he could advise further.
5. It set out outstanding actions with associated timescales.
On 24 April 2025 the landlord referred the resident and her neighbour to mediation.
The resident referred her complaint to us. She told us the ASB was ongoing. She was concerned that the landlord did not fully understand her medical conditions which had impacted on its response.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB Procedure says:
1. An action plan should be agreed with the resident for every case using the ‘ASB action plan.’ This may include the involvement of other agencies. A copy should be given to the resident.
2. Its checklist for action includes providing diary sheets and ensuring full details of the incident are recorded using the ‘ASB complainant interview form.’
3. A vulnerability matrix should be completed.
4. Following discussions with alleged perpetrators the landlord will write to the resident to confirm what action, if any will be taken.
5. It will write to residents to advise them that the case is closed.
The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out the need for landlords to put victims at the heart of their response to ASB. When considering the response to ASB, landlords must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim
In the landlord’s response to us it confirmed that an ASB case was opened on 4 December 2023. The resident’s evidence to us sets out that she contacted the landlord after her neighbour had a party, was drunk and verbally abused her. However, there is no evidence of this contact.
An action plan also dated 4 December 2023 was completed in line with the landlord’s ASB Procedure. It set out steps taken by the resident’s neighbour including reducing noise from her son and issuing an apology to the resident.
An in person interview was carried out between the landlord and resident on 18 January 2024. It is unclear why it took over a month to arrange this appointment and even taking the holiday period into account the delay was unreasonable.
We have been provided with a copy of a complainant interview form dated 4 December 2023 and 18 January 2024. However, except for the resident and neighbour’s details the form is blank. The box labelled “OAP/Single Woman/Lone Parent/Disability/Other vulnerability” is also blank and the form is not signed by the resident.
The landlord completed a vulnerability matrix on 18 January 2024 which was signed by the resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed with the resident how she would record further incidents, for example using diary sheets it provided. The landlord failed to comply with its ASB Procedure and failed to demonstrate a commitment to a victim led response.
The evidence shows that on 21 January 2024 the resident reported an incident of ASB caused by her neighbour to the landlord and police. She said that when her neighbour became aware she went round to her property, “banging on her door threatening her.” There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a vulnerability matrix which was particularly inappropriate given the nature of her report.
The resident’s account of the event to us states that her neighbour was “battering” on her door and windows and was shouting and swearing and threatened to kill the resident if she called the police. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s reports to the police and landlord which is a record keeping failure.
A file note dated 22 January 2024 sets out the landlord’s interview with the neighbour to discuss the allegation. It contains a written statement from the neighbour which was signed 25 January 2024 in which she said her behaviour had been the result of a misunderstanding. She agreed to write an apology letter to the resident and to participate in mediation. There are notes relating to noise made by the neighbour’s young son. However, there are no notes relating to discussions specifically around alleged threats.
There is also no evidence that the landlord progressed the matter of mediation in line with its ASB Policy. In its update to us it said that the resident declined to participate in mediation. There is no evidence to support its position.
On 2 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the neighbour to confirm they had discussed the resident’s reports about their use of chemical products in their home. They had also discussed the resident’s reports of noise. The letter sets out the neighbour’s responses in addition to her explanation of why she confronted her neighbour on 22 January 2024. Again, there is no confirmation that the landlord put the alleged threats to her and recorded her response which was inappropriate. It confirmed that no action would be taken.
That the landlord failed to discuss the resident’s allegations of threats being made against her was evidence that it did not carry out a thorough investigation of the incident. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it wrote to the resident to update her in line with its ASB Procedure.
The landlord submitted a disclosure request to the police. On 7 February 2024 they responded to confirm that they were investigating the resident’s allegation that her neighbour made threats to kill. While it was appropriate to liaise with the police, there is no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident on how that impacted its investigation. This was inappropriate because she could not be satisfied it was taking her report seriously.
During her complaint dated 13 August 2024 the resident alleged her neighbour was “deliberately trying to kill me” by putting “toxic chemicals” down the shared drains. She said her neighbour knew she carried an EpiPen and would have to call an ambulance if she had a reaction. She also set out her ongoing concerns about her neighbour’s general ASB.
In the same email she asked that it make reasonable adjustments when visiting her by not wearing perfumes or aftershaves. She advised she was disabled and referred to the landlord’s duty of care. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request which was inappropriate causing uncertainty for the resident.
On 20 August 2024 ‘Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Aware’ wrote a letter of support on the resident’s behalf. They confirmed that the resident may suffer anaphylaxis if she was exposed to “low levels of everyday chemicals” including cleaning products. It referred to the Equality Act 2010 and arising duty of care to disabled residents.
A file note dated 28 August 2024 set out the landlord’s phone call with the resident. She said she had spoken to her neighbour about “pouring chemicals down the drain” and the impact it had on her. She had purchased some products for her neighbour to use due to the cost. The resident also raised concerns about other ASB caused by the neighbour including loud parties and fights.
On 20 and 28 August 2024 the resident raised concerns about additional ASB caused by her neighbour. There is no evidence that the landlord entered a meaningful discussion with the resident to investigate her reports. Had it done so she may have been assured that it took her reports seriously and was investigating in line with its ASB Procedure.
A further file note set out that the landlord spoke to the police on 29 August 2024. They confirmed they were not taking any further action and suggested mediation may be a way forward. As set out above this had previously been considered but not progressed.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 3 September 2024 confirmed it had discussed the neighbour’s use of chemicals with her. Its explanation regarding the limited action it could take was reasonable. However, it should have provided this update sooner.
In her email to the landlord of 4 September 2024 the resident said she had a log of “constant noise and harassment.” Again, there was no evidence that the landlord responded appropriately by asking to see the log to investigate further.
On 30 September 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the noise had reduced. However, she remained concerned about the neighbour’s ongoing use of cleaning products and the impact on her. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which further eroded the resident/landlord relationship.
The landlord’s inaction caused inconvenience to the resident who requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 January 2025 to try to resolve the substantive issue.
During her call with the landlord on 18 February 2025 the resident said that if she could not move, she wanted the landlord to change the layout of the internal drainage and pipes. The landlord said it would explore a referral to mediation and consider her request regarding the pipes by 21 March 2025. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s frustration regarding the landlord’s inaction in relation to other forms of ASB was evident in her email dated 6 March 2025. She was concerned it had not taken a “victim led” response. By way of example she said she had not been provided with diary sheets or considered for noise equipment. She said she had audio evidence of domestic abuse taking place and confirmed she was happy to participate in mediation. There is no evidence that it asked to review her audio recordings which was inappropriate for reasons set out above.
On 6 March 2025 the resident and landlord engaged in correspondence via email regarding a visit proposed for 14 March 2025. During the exchange the landlord confirmed that it understood the resident’s request for officers to be scent free. While this was positive there is no evidence that the landlord has provided a formal response to the resident regarding her request for reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 13 March 2025 only considered its response to the issue of the cleaning products and the specific incident in January 2024. It missed an opportunity to review its overall response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It therefore failed to use the complaint to resolve the substantive issue and identify how it might do things differently.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident regarding her request to alter the drainage and plumbing. This was inappropriate because we expect landlords to monitor completion of actions set out as part of the complaint resolution process.
In the landlord’s response to us it said the resident had said she had a disability however she did not provide evidence of this. Consequently it recorded the case as “medical / health / vulnerable/MCS illness.” However, in this case while it did not record the resident as disabled the evidence shows it had regard to the issue by talking to the neighbour about the problem.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The resident was likely caused distress and inconvenience by the handling of the ASB and the delay in offering the mediation. The evidence does not show, however, the resident would have been in a materially better position.
Landlords are not responsible for the acts or their tenants unless they directed, authorised or adopted the conduct. Where we find a failure, our compensation awards are to recognise the landlord’s actions caused some distress, upset and inconvenience. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance – given that there were failures – but the overall impact was not significant and lasting.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved

During her complaint to the landlord dated 13 August 2024 the resident requested to be put on the emergency housing list. She said she had received no response to her previous requests. There is no evidence that the landlord replied. This was inappropriate because it compounded her distress.
The landlord’s inaction caused the resident time and trouble when she raised the matter again during their telephone call on 28 August 2024.
Having made relevant enquiries, the local authority emailed the landlord on 3 September 2024 to set out the status of the resident’s live transfer application.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 3 September 2024 provided an appropriate explanation regarding the local authority’s choice based letting scheme. It said it would support the resident to make a request to the local authority’s emergency panel on medical grounds.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 September 2024 to request that it make a case for her to be given an emergency move on the grounds of ASB. The local authority emailed a response to the resident on 12 September 2024. It said the police would need to provide a supporting statement for it to consider moving the resident as an emergency. This was the local authority’s decision and we cannot consider it against the landlord we are investigating in this case.
In an email to the landlord dated 30 September 2024 the resident said that she felt unsafe due to the potential risk caused by her neighbour’s use of cleaning products. She asked for a move. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
During a telephone call with the resident on 18 February 2025 the landlord signposted her to the mutual exchange process. Considering it was unable to grant a management move this was an appropriate response. It said it would contact her by 21 March 2025 to provide further information.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 13 March 2024 provided an appropriate update to the resident regarding her housing application. It considered if it could support the resident to make an application to the local authority for an emergency transfer. It set out appropriate reasons why it was unable to do so. It also confirmed it was unable to provide a management move and gave an appropriate explanation. It repeated its commitment to contact the resident by 21 March 2025 to discuss the option of mutual exchange. However, it is unclear if it did so which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord appropriately set out its position regarding the resident’s request for a move. However, there were failures in its communication which meant it failed to manage the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response because the failures may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was a failure of short duration.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of its acknowledgement.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was appropriately in line with its Complaints Policy.
On 28 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to say her complaint against her neighbour was ongoing. An internal email of the same date queried whether the complaint should be escalated because it was about the neighbour rather than how the tenancy officer responded.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated its decision to the resident one way or another. Its inaction caused inconvenience to the resident who contacted us for assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2025 to request that it clarify its position.
On 13 February 2025 the landlord emailed us to say the resident had not escalated her complaint but it would do so now. While this was positive it was inappropriate that the landlord had not set outs its position to the resident sooner.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response because its failure may not have had a significant effect on the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was a failure of short duration.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Set out its position regarding her request to change the pipes and drains if it has not already done so.
  3. Confirm its response to her request for reasonable adjustments in line with its Vulnerability and Reasonable Adjustments Policy 2025.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. £50 for the distress caused by its failures in response to the resident’s request to be moved.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure.
3. If it has not already done so in the last 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident to set out its position regarding her ongoing reports of ASB. It must explain whether the case is open and what the next steps are and how often it will update the resident.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.