Worthing Homes Limited (202407292)

Decision
Case ID	202407292
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Worthing Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

The resident and her husband have raised concerns about Anti–social Behaviour (ASB) for around 2 years. The landlord is aware that the resident has physical health vulnerabilities and uses a breathing machine at night.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her requests for CCTV.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her requests for CCTV.
2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB and requests for CCTV

We found that the landlord made attempts to resolve the ASB but failed to carry out any risk assessments for the resident. It also failed to provide her with appropriate support and information.

Complaint handling

We found there was a delay in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint which subsequently delayed its stage 1 response. The landlord did not identify the delay in its responses.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 December 2025
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows:  £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her requests for CCTV.  £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025
	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident with information about services that can provide support for victims of ASB. The landlord should assist with referrals where appropriate in line with any relevant policies or procedures.	No later than 23 December 2025
	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the adequacy of the spyhole in her door. It should assess whether it can provide any further support to enable her to see who is at the door.	No later than 23 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her reports of new ASB issues caused by a different neighbour.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 January 2024	The resident reported that a neighbour had been abusive and had banged on her door with a weapon, causing damage. She said similar incidents had occurred at night for 2 years, yet despite reports, the landlord had taken no action. She felt unable to protect herself due to ill health and was too scared to sleep. She wanted the neighbour moved.
Between 5 and 15 February 2024	The landlord visited the neighbour, advising them not to interact with the resident. It issued a written warning. After visiting the resident, it said it: would inspect her door and the option of a bigger spyhole. found no evidence of drug use by the neighbour. would refer them both for mediation if all parties agreed. could not install cameras for GDPR reasons.
28 February 2024	The resident complained after being woken by the neighbour banging and slamming a door. She said the banging, door hitting, abusive language and threatening behaviour had been ongoing for 2 years and she did not consider the written warning appropriate action. The resident said she wanted the neighbour rehoused as she did not feel safe. She also wanted CCTV for all residents.
Between 1 and 19 March 2024	The resident reported that another resident had their electricity turned off by someone accessing the communal meter cupboard. As she relied on a breathing machine at night, she worried about this happening to her. She asked the landlord to securely lock the cupboard and install CCTV. She also reported a smell of drugs from the neighbour accused of ASB.
28 March 2024	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it: had liaised with police and taken action against the neighbour, who was told not to contact the resident. was unlikely to allow a doorbell camera as then it would require allowing all residents, and the resident had previously complained about a neighbour having one. had made 7 visits to the neighbour in February and 3 in March and found no evidence of drug use. had offered both parties mediation which the resident declined. would look at installing a lock on the electricity cupboard.
10 April 2024	The landlord told the resident that CCTV in the communal areas would lead to an increase in resident service charges. It also said it had carried out a proportionate level of inspections regarding the alleged drug use and asked the resident to log when she could smell it.
23 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she felt the landlord had not done enough to keep people safe. She said the neighbour was still smoking drugs, and she lived in fear that they might turn her electricity off. She reiterated her request for CCTV.
22 May 2024	In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it: had reviewed the records and did not feel the ASB warranted CCTV installation. The reports did not suggest a persistent problem in the communal hallway. was satisfied after attending on many occasions, that the neighbour was not smoking any drugs in their property. understood the resident’s concerns about access to the electricity cupboard given her reliance on the breathing machine. It would lock the cupboard and arrange meter readings as required. had acted to resolve the ASB and issued the neighbour with an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). It would consider legal action if the neighbour breached the contract.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us as she felt the landlord had not done enough to resolve the ASB. She wanted CCTV and the neighbour moved. The resident later told us that after the landlord’s final response, it installed CCTV in the communal areas and provided her with a temporary doorbell camera, which it removed after getting the neighbour rehoused. The resident said she wanted the doorbell camera reinstated due to difficulty seeing who was at her door and fearing the neighbour could return. She also sought compensation for the distress caused.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her requests for CCTV.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that she was experiencing new ASB from a different neighbour. This issue occurred after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been exhausted and did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint raised in February 2024. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

What we did investigate

The resident said she has experienced issues with ASB from her neighbour for around 2 years. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from January 2024. This is also the period the landlord investigated in its internal complaint procedure. We may refer to events before this for context.
The resident reported ASB on 30 January 2024. The landlord called the resident’s husband on 31 January and 1 February 2024, but he was at work. It eventually spoke to the resident about the issue on 2 February 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will respond to issues such as harassment, verbal abuse and intimidating behaviour within 2 working days. Whilst the conversation with the resident took place 3 working days later, the landlord had attempted to respond in a reasonable time.
By 15 February 2024 the landlord had visited the neighbour and told them not to contact the resident. It also visited the resident and said it would inspect her door, liaise with the police and take action against the neighbour. It offered mediation to both. It is unclear if an inspection of the resident’s door took place, which is a minor failure in its record keeping.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any risk assessments for the resident over the period she had reported ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to its procedures, however it is unclear what these are, so we are unable to assess if the landlord’s actions were compliant. However, the government’s ASB toolkit for social landlords recommends assessing the vulnerability of victims to enable adequate support. That the landlord did not carry out an assessment was unreasonable.
The resident complained after another ASB incident occurred. She said a written warning was not enough and she wanted the neighbour moved. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was liaising with the police and taking action against the neighbour but could not give details for confidentiality reasons. Although the landlord was right to consider its data protection obligations, and was making efforts to address the ASB, it should have clarified how these actions might impact the resident. The landlord failed to manage her expectations.
On 19 March 2024 the resident added to her complaint that she could smell the neighbour smoking drugs. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had visited the neighbour ad hoc 10 times between 5 February and 20 March 2024 and found no evidence of drug use. The landlord later told the resident it had made a proportionate level of inspections to investigate the matter and asked her to record dates and times when she smelled drugs. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
After liaising with the police, on 9 April 2024 the landlord issued the neighbour with an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). This was a positive step which showed that the landlord was taking appropriate action to address the ASB reports.
The resident added to her complaint that she was worried about communal access to the electricity cupboard. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged her concerns and said it could lock the cupboard if other residents agreed. However, it did not offer an alternative if they objected, which was unreasonable and likely increased her distress.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord said it would trial giving all residents a lock for the electricity cupboard so they could still access it for meter readings. If problems arose, it would consider a permanent lock and give access for readings. The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that it will ensure residents receive the required assistance to thrive in their home. The landlord’s response failed to provide assurance that the resident’s electricity could not be tampered with, which was not in line with its policy.
In her escalation, the resident reiterated her fears about her electricity being turned off. In the landlords’ stage 2 response, it recognised the resident’s concerns given her reliance on the breathing machine. The landlord agreed to lock the cupboard and arrange access for meter readings. The resident confirmed to this Service that the landlord locked the cupboard. This was appropriate.
The resident re-raised the matter of the neighbour smoking drugs in her escalation. She said the landlord had not visited the neighbour at weekends which was when they smoked. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it had adequately investigated and stated the police had not detected any evidence of drug use during their visits. However, it had asked staff to continue to monitor during site visits. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord several times to install CCTV or a doorbell camera to capture evidence of ASB. In line with its CCTV guidance, the landlord had told the resident on 15 February 2024 that it did not permit cameras in communal areas. It did say it would look at enlarging the spyhole on her door so that she could see through it more clearly. The resident told us that the landlord did fit a larger spyhole, however, due to an eye condition, she still struggled to see anyone at her door which worried her. It is unclear if she reported this to the landlord.
The landlord’s CCTV guidance states that it will consider resident requests for cameras in exceptional circumstances, for example, to prevent or resolve ASB. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that to allow her a doorbell camera would mean allowing all residents to have one. It noted that the resident had complained about a neighbour having one previously. On 10 April 2024 the landlord said installing CCTV would lead to an increase in service charges. It offered to consult with residents to see if the majority were in favour. This was reasonable.
The resident responded stating she would not pay for CCTV through service charges as the ASB was not her fault. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there was not enough evidence to support the installation of CCTV in communal areas. It said it could re-visit this decision if the case were to escalate, but the neighbour now had an ABC in place, and if breached, the landlord would take legal action. This was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions that the ASB was causing her stress and sleepless nights. She said that after nearly 20 years in her home, she felt unsafe and lived in fear. Social landlords are required by the Neighbourhood and Community Standard to demonstrate that they are providing support to victims. There is no evidence that the landlord referred or signposted the resident to support services such as Victim Support, which could have helped her manage the distress caused.
There is also no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with information about her right to request an ASB Case Review. This was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB Policy which states it will provide advice and support to victims of ASB, including referrals to other agencies.
The resident told us that the issues had left her feeling traumatised. The landlord failed to provide her with information or referrals to appropriate support, which could have helped alleviate some distress. It also failed to consider a risk assessment following her ASB reports. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £500 for any distress or inconvenience caused. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for findings which have an emotional impact which can include distress, inconvenience or time and trouble.
We have also made orders for the landlord to contact the resident about support available to her, and to assess whether the spyhole in her door is adequate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2024 sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 14 working days after she raised it. This was not in line with its policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It is unclear why there was a delay. This was a service failure.
The stage 1 complaint response was issued 7 working days after the acknowledgement. Whilst this was in line with the Code, the overall response time was unreasonably delayed due to the late acknowledgement.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in line with the Code. In both its responses, the landlord failed to identify its delay in acknowledging the complaint. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance for any distress caused by its delay.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Despite a specific request from this Service, the landlord failed to provide its ASB procedures. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

Overall, the landlord communicated well with the resident, however on occasion, it could have done more to manage her expectations on a resolution to the ASB.