West Kent Housing Association (202511980)

Background

1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom property with his wife and two children. We understand both are considered vulnerable; the resident reportedly has autism, and his wife has experienced postpartum depression. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports concerning a neighbouring household, dating back to March 2024. Reported concerns include delays and lack of appropriate action to address the ASB and safeguard the household. The resident also said the landlord failed to recognise the seriousness and impact of the ASB. He reported poor communication and limited transparency regarding the complaint process.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of ASB by a neighbouring household.
3. The handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found the landlord often responded fairly and reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB. However, there were notable failures. The landlord has not demonstrated it completed a risk assessment promptly. There were gaps in its communication and record-keeping failures. And the landlord also closed the 2nd ASB case based on assurances by the neighbour, and without monitoring to confirm improvement.
7. We found delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord had not addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

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.

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.

August 2024 ASB

8. The evidence provided indicates the resident first reported ASB on 19 August 2024. We note the landlord said the report was made on 17 August 2024. The resident stated his neighbours often parked their vehicle outside the designated area, blocking access for other residents. He reported asking his neighbours to move their vehicle. He also said the situation posed a potential risk to his two young children. On 20 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that he and his wife were considered vulnerable and that the situation had caused them distress
9. The landlord treated the resident’s reports of parking issues as ASB, which was in line with its Community Safety Policy as the resident had said they were vulnerable. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 22 August 2024. It wrote to the resident on 23 August 2024, providing details of its Community Safety Policy and action plan. The landlord confirmed it would update the resident the following week. This was fair and reasonable.
10. In line with its policy, the landlord should have also completed a risk assessment as soon as possible after the ASB was reported. It failed to do this. As a result, the landlord missed an early opportunity to identify any vulnerabilities or support the resident may have needed. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation for this. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise. We will consider its compensation offer in light of its overall handling of the complaint.
11. The landlord’s call notes, and its stage 2 complaint response suggest the resident declined its offer of victim support. The resident has said this is misleading and explained that he did not engage with victim support at the time due to wider personal circumstances. The landlord has acknowledged that it could have been more proactive at the early stages of its handling of the ASB to understand the resident’s needs and circumstances. We are satisfied the landlord’s apology for this is fair and reasonable.
12. In its complaint responses the landlord has apologised for an administrative error, where it did not attach relevant correspondence about the parking to its ASB case file. It said it would treat this as a learning opportunity. The evidence provided does not indicate this administrative error had a negative impact on the resident. So, we consider the landlord’s response fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The landlord did not correspond with the resident between 23 August 2024 and 24 September 2024. This was not in line with its Community Safety Policy, which says it will keep in regular contact, usually at least every 2 weeks. The lack of contact may have contributed to the resident feeling that the landlord did not take sufficient action. The landlord has apologised and offered £75 compensation for this in its complaint responses. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise. We have considered its overall compensation offer elsewhere in this report.
14. The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour about the reported ASB on 23 August 2024, but it appears this was unsuccessful. It then wrote to the neighbour about the parking, although we have not been provided a copy of this letter. The landlord telephoned the neighbour on 24 September 2024, and it seems the neighbour confirmed they would speak with their household and stop the parking issues. This intervention was in line with the landlord’s policy and was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
15. On 24 September 2024, in line with its Community Safety Policy, the landlord notified the resident of its intervention. It appears the landlord closed the ASB case on the same day, with the resident’s agreement. We have not seen evidence which indicates that at the time the landlord ought to have known the parking issue had not been resolved. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

October 2024 ASB

16. On either 30 October or 31 October 2024, the resident reported the parking issues were ongoing. He also informed the landlord about the impact the situation had on his family and again noted that they were considered vulnerable. In response, the landlord opened a new ASB case and telephoned the neighbour on 1 November 2024 to inform them a Neighbourhood Housing Officer (NHO) would be in touch to discuss the issue and, in the meantime, to be considerate when parking. This showed the landlord acted promptly in response to the reports of continued ASB. This was fair and reasonable.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has said it could not identify that it sent an action plan after receiving reports of ASB in October 2024. We have received a copy of an action plan dated 4 November 2024. It is unclear if this was written and not sent or if the landlord was mistaken in its stage 2 response. In either case, this was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
18. The landlord has said it completed a risk assessment after receiving reports of ASB in October 2024. The evidence provided indicates a risk assessment was completed. However, the copy we received is undated, so it is unclear when this happened. Therefore, we cannot confirm the landlord completed this as soon as it reasonably could, in line with its policy.
19. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 12 November 2024. The evidence suggests at this point the neighbour said they wanted the resident to approach them directly about the parking issue. The resident reported further issues on 20 November 2024, relating to multiple vans parking incorrectly outside the property and blocking access. The landlord raised this with the neighbour on the same day. The evidence provided indicate the neighbour denied there was an issue and again requested the resident approach them if his access was blocked.
20. On 23 December 2024, the landlord told the neighbour that the resident should never have to inconvenience himself by asking them to move an incorrectly parked vehicle. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this on 12 November 2024, or at the latest on 20 November 2024. Clearly establishing that this wasn’t acceptable may have helped prevent the situation from escalating.
21. On 2 December 2024, the resident reported that the situation had escalated. He said the neighbour had shouted aggressively at him about the parking issues. The resident stated that he was vulnerable and had no support other than the landlord for managing the ASB. The landlord tried to contact the resident’s wife. When that was unsuccessful, it emailed the resident on 3 December 2024 asking him to get in touch to discuss the issue. The landlord’s prompt response showed that it recognised the urgency of the situation.
22. The resident has told us the landlord has not recognised the seriousness of the shouting incident. He has said the neighbour racially abused him, on this and other occasions. Under its policy, the landlord requires evidence to respond to reports of ASB. We have not seen that the landlord was provided evidence of racial abuse, or that it was made aware of the specific nature of the verbal abuse the resident said he experienced. So, we cannot say the landlord should have done more in response to this.
23. On 10 December 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would be meeting with the neighbour to discuss the recent reports of shouting. The landlord completed an in-person visit on 17 December 2024. The evidence suggests the neighbour assured the landlord there would be no further parking issues. They said they had apologised to the resident for the shouting incident and had asked the resident to approach them directly if there were further issues with parking. This was a further opportunity for the landlord to explain that the resident should not have to inconvenience himself by asking for access to his parking area.
24. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 December 2024 and offered the resident mediation, which he declined. The resident said it was not safe or appropriate for the landlord to offer mediation. Offering mediation is one of several tools a landlord may use to try to resolve ASB and prevent disputes escalating. The landlord offered this in line with its Community Safety Policy. We are satisfied it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation in the circumstances.
25. The landlord acknowledged that it could have explained the mediation process more clearly and said it would learn from this. This showed a willingness to improve its processes. We are satisfied this was fair and reasonable.
26. Also, on 23 December 2024 the landlord wrote to the neighbour, advising the rules around parking. The landlord said:
    1. Vehicles should not be parked at the end of parking bays or in the road unless necessary and only for short periods of time.
    2. Vehicle should not be left unattended.
    3. The neighbour should be ready to move vehicles at short notice.
    4. Other residents should never have to inconvenience themselves by having to ask or wait for a vehicle to be moved to access their parking area.
27. After sending the letter, the landlord closed the case with the resident’s agreement. We understand the landlord had been assured by the neighbour that the problem would stop. However, as the neighbour had previously made similar assurances and the parking issues had continued. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation for a period before closing the ASB case.
28. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord tried to contact his wife on multiple occasions, despite his request not to because of her vulnerabilities. The landlord said this may have happened because the initial ASB webform was signed by both the resident and his wife. It also said it had incorrectly added the resident’s son’s details to the ASB cases. The landlord apologised for this and offered £50 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise. We will consider the overall compensation offer later in this report.

 April 2025 ASB

29. There is a gap in reports of ASB until 14 April 2025, when the resident reported further issues with parking and access by the neighbour. The resident also reported abusive language and threatening behaviour. The resident said this left him feeling intimidated. He again noted that his family were considered vulnerable and he told the landlord about the impact on their health and wellbeing. In light of this, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
30. We recognise the resident has said the landlord’s response to the ASB has contributed to the impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this point further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
31. The landlord responded to the reported ASB on 15 April 2025. It noted the resident had not made a stage 1 complaint. It explained the difference between an ASB complaint about someone’s behaviour and a formal complaint about the landlord. The landlord confirmed it would raise a new ASB case and open a stage 1 complaint. The resident has complained about a lack of transparency by the landlord in relation to its complaint procedure, we have considered this elsewhere in this report.
32. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 24 April 2025. On the same day the landlord sent the resident an action plan for how it would aim to resolve the issue. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
33. In line with its action plan and policy, the landlord agreed to contact the resident every 2 weeks, and no later than 13 May 2025. The evidence indicates the landlord updated the resident about his formal complaint. However, it is not clear the landlord contacted the resident about his ASB case until 20 May 2025. So, we cannot say the landlord acted in line with its action plan or policy. This was not fair and reasonable.
34. On 13 May 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour to notify them of the ASB reports. It scheduled a meeting for 6 June 2025. The resident reported further ASB on 3 June 2025, involving reckless driving and alleged criminal activity. The landlord agreed to discuss this with the neighbour during the meeting. In its complaint responses, the landlord said the resident agreed to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement on 6 June 2025, although we have not been provided a copy of this. The landlord updated the resident on the same day and asked him to continue providing evidence through the ASB app.
35. Following this, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In relation to the ongoing ASB case, it said it had received reports of ASB from other residents. It confirmed it would escalate the issue to its Community Safety Team, who would provide an action plan. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord also said it would tailor its services around the resident’s needs and discuss how he could send evidence going forward. It provided information about the Community Trigger, a process the resident could follow if he wanted the handling of his ASB cases reviewed.
36. The landlord’s Community Safety Manager (CSM) emailed the resident on 17 June 2025. The CSM offered to visit the resident to resolve technical problems he had reported with the ASB app. Alternatively, they offered to provide diary sheets so the resident could continue to provide evidence of ASB. They confirmed the landlord was working with the police to resolve the issues raised. The CSM also provided details of several support organisations and offered to assist the resident with a referral. We are satisfied this was fair and reasonable and in line with the commitments made in the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Summary

37. Looking at what happened on many occasions, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was fair and reasonable. There were also several failures by the landlord, many of which it recognised in its complaint responses.
38. However, we identified further record-keeping issues and a delay in communication that the landlord did not address. We do not consider it fair or reasonable for the landlord to have closed the resident’s second ASB case based on the neighbour’s assurances and without monitoring to ensure the situation had improved.
39. In its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £175 compensation for its overall handling of the reported ASB. We consider the compensation offered to be fair and reasonable for the failures the landlord identified during its investigation. If we had not identified further concerns, we would likely have made a finding of reasonable redress.
40. However, in recognition of the additional concerns identified in this report, we have made an overall finding of service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and award an additional £100 compensation. This is to recognise any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of the failures identified in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right.
41. The landlord has told us that following its stage 2 response, it installed CCTV to monitor potential further ASB and issued warning letters to the resident’s neighbour. However, the resident has said that despite this there has recently been further incidents of ASB. We have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the current situation.

42. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, as set out in its complaints policy. This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets the rules and standards landlords must follow when handling complaints.
43. The resident has complained that following his reports of ASB the landlord did not provide information about its complaint process or open a formal complaint until April 2025. The resident said this showed a lack of transparency by the landlord.
44. We have not seen evidence that the landlord was not transparent about its complaint process. Under the landlord’s policy a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of a service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord. Whereas ASB is conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of residential premises.
45. The earliest record we have of the resident expressing dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the ASB was in April 2025. Following this, the landlord provided information about its complaint procedure and recorded a stage 1 complaint. This was fair and reasonable.
46. We have identified some concerns with the landlord’s handling of this complaint. In accordance with its policy and the Code, the landlord should address all complaint points. The landlord does not dispute that it did not appropriately consider the reported impact on the resident’s health in the stage 1 response. The landlord has apologised and offered compensation for this.
47. In his email dated 24 May 2025, the resident raised concerns about indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses. This may have contributed to the resident feeling the landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation.
48. Under its policy, the landlord should answer stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord has said it answered the stage 1 complaint within the required timescales. However, the evidence indicates the resident complained on 15 April 2025 and the response was dated 1 May 2025, which is 12-working days. So, the landlord caused a minor delay here.
49. In line with its policy the landlord should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, unless an extension is agreed. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 May 2025. The landlord responded on 11 June 2025, which was 26-working days. We have not received evidence an extension was agreed. So, the landlord caused an additional delay.
50. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation for not considering the reported health impact on the resident in its stage 1 complaint. We do not consider this offer proportionate, as its complaint handling failures were not limited to this; they included:
    1. Delays at both stages of its complaint process.
    2. A breach of policy by failing to consider the reported impact on the resident’s health.
    3. A breach of policy by failing to address the resident’s concerns of discrimination under the Act.
51. Our remedies guidance states that compensation should reflect the severity of the failure and its impact. In this case, £50 does not adequately recognise the cumulative delays and policy breaches, and the distress and inconvenience caused. Considering this, we have found service failure. We have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation to £100. This is a more proportionate amount for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failures identified. We have also ordered the landlord to explain to the resident, in writing, how it considered its responsibilities under the Act when responding to his reports to ASB.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. Accurate and complete record-keeping is critical for effective case management. The landlord could improve matters by maintaining clear records of all actions taken, including dates of risk assessments, copies of action plans, and correspondence.

Communication

53. The landlord should ensure that communication with residents is timely, consistent, and aligned with its service standards. Regular updates can help maintain trust and demonstrate that reports are being actively managed. Clear explanations of processes, such as mediation or escalation routes, provided at the outset would likely avoid misunderstandings.