Your Housing Group Limited (202419290)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419290

Your Housing Group Limited

27 June 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and her request for a reasonable adjustment.

Background

The resident occupied her property under an assured tenancy, together with her adult son. The landlord had recorded for the resident that she suffered from anxiety, depression and PTSD.
On 24 April 2024 the resident reported that she and her son heard her neighbour (“N”) and N’s son shouting he was going to kill N. When N and her son came outside of their property, the resident asked N if she was “ok”. N’s son said he was going to stab the resident and her son in the neck. It had left her fearful.
On 1 May 2024 the landlord wrote to N to arrange to speak to her.
On 8 May 2024 a housing officer of the landlord (“HO”) wrote to the resident regarding the report. The HO asked when it would be convenient to call.
On 10 May 2024 the resident replied as follows:
1. She was disabled and unable to take phone calls. She had told the landlord this in the past when it had contacted her about a direct debit. She had suffered a very serious assault when she was 17. Her mental health had plummeted after the perpetrator was released. She became agoraphobic. Her only safe space was her home.
2. She had reported to the police an incident where she and her son were threatened with stabbing by her neighbour’s (“N”) son. She did not want him to be arrested.
3. The incident had made her disability “100 times” worse. She asked the landlord for support.
4. She understood that N’s son had a history of violent behaviour but her mother “takes him back” after each incident.
On the same day, the HO contacted the police for further information and offered the resident “task hardening” measures, tenancy support and to speak to N and N’s son. The HO asked whether the resident would like to move.
On 15 May 2024 the resident stated she did not want to move as that would “lead to more issues” but wanted the landlord to explain to N the effect of N’s son’s behaviour on her. She also reported N’s ex-husband “staring menacingly through (her) window”.She had tried to help N. The HO wrote to the resident with further questions.
On the same day, according to an internal note, the HO created an action plan and carried out a risk assessment.
The HO spoke to N and noted N’s son’s circumstances. N said there was an argument between father and son. The HO considered an exchange of messages between N and the resident following the incident. The HO considered N and the resident were “really close friends”.
Also on the same day, shortly after, the HO wrote to the resident stating she had spoken to N and no further action would be taken in this case. The resident asked for reasons.
The HO replied that the resident ran a local bakery business and the HO was “not sure” why the resident could not speak with the HO on the phone. She had “completed (her”) investigation and no further action would be taken. She could not “discuss conversations (she had had) with the other parties”.
On 15 May 2024 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She had reported death threats by N’s son. The complaint was about the HO dealing with her case. At first, the HO was kind and supportive. After the HO spoke to N, she became very hostile and closed the case without an explanation.
2. The HO had discriminated against her disability. They had questioned and downplayed her disability, and the impact of the incident. The resident felt disbelieved and attacked.
3. The HO had taken N’s side. The resident had provided evidence and could provide further evidence.
4. She had been left “extremely distressed and judged”.
5. She wanted a different ASB officer and to take her complaint about discrimination further.
On 16 May 2024, the HO offered to call the resident. She offered mediation and to give 2 weeks for further evidence. She reported to the resident her conversation with N that:
1. The police had not taken anything further criminal action.
2. “Nothing” has happened since the incident.
3. N and the resident were good friends. N had apologised.
4. N’s son did not live at N’s and had not caused the resident “any direct hurt or harm which the police have charged him with”.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the matter as the HO was questioning her disability and did not believe her.
There followed an email correspondence between the resident and the regional manager of the landlord in which the landlord offered support and set out views that were summarised in the Stage 1 response.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The HO should have informed the resident and explained her reasons for closing her ASB case.
2. It should have sent N a formal tenancy warning due to the behaviour of her son. It should have kept the case open until such time she was “comfortable”.
3. The resident had asked for email communication. The HO had queried this, referring to the resident running a cake business. The HO’s questioning was completely irrelevant to her disability. It apologised. The HO should not have questioned this.
4. On 12 June 2024 the landlord called the resident’s support service (as requested by the resident). It said the service was unable to provide any specific information. They were not legally trained.
5. The incomes team had contacted her on 23 January 2023 to discuss her direct debit. While it could not be done by email due to the legal process, it proved not to have been necessary. It had apologised on 26 January 2023 and had noted her communication request.
6. It should adhere to a request to communicate by a resident’s chosen method. The HO would use standard letter templates to provide a more consistent approach. It should never question someone’s disability and it was very important that it made reasonable adjustments to meet its customer’s needs.
7. It had had a case conference with itsASB Legal Officer. It had discussed “target hardening measures”.(These are protective measures to increase her security). On 5 July 2024 the landlord hadinformed theresidentthere was a court order in place to keep N’s son away from the area. The residenthad said she felt more confident.
8. The legal ASB team would ensure her ASB case was managed “robustly” and it would support her.
9. It apologised for the stress and hurt that she had experienced in relation to this case. It offered £500 for the impact it had had on her and £100 for not following its ASB policy and procedure.
On 7 August 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. Her reasons were set out in the Stage 2 response.
On 14 August 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The regional housing manager had collaborated with her well during the Stage 1 complaint investigation and that she felt he respected her and showed empathy. However, she had felt that she not received that from other service areas since.
2. In June 2024, it discussed support and any additional measures to ensure the resident remained safe in her home. On 12 July 2024, it discussed N’s son’s behaviour with N. The landlord told N it was considering applying for an injunction against her son. N was also the “unfortunate victim” of N’s son’s “unacceptable behaviour”.
3. The new ASB HO had been on leave. On 7 August 2024 that HO asked if there had been any more incidents, discussed safety measures and was looking into a query regarding her front door. The HO had prepared a legal bundle for an internal review and approval to instruct its solicitors to commence legal action against N’s son.
4. It explained its internal processes in relation to ASB reports.
5. It did not consider that the issuing of a warning letter “in February” would have resulted in the legal process being expedited, as the investigation remained ongoing.
There was further correspondence with the resident throughout the rest of July and August 2024 about the injunction case. The resident ceased to respond after 1 September 2024 and, on 7 October 2024, the landlord closed the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Part of the resident’s complaint was that she felt the landlord had discriminated against her and not provided a reasonable adjustment. The Equality Act 2010 requires that organisations do not discriminate against a person who is disabled, as defined by the act. Organisations are also required to make reasonable adjustments where a person is considered to be disabled under the act. We do not make decisions whether a person is disabled under the act, whether there has been discrimination, or whether a landlord should make an adjustment. However, we do look at whether a landlord has properly considered these issues.

The complaint

It was inappropriate of the landlord, in mid-May 2024,
1. to change its decision regarding how it dealt with the resident’s report of the incident of February 2024
2. not to give its reasons for closing a ASB case, even when asked to
3. to assume the resident ran a baking business
4. and, on that basis, challenge the resident’s request not to speak on the telephone.
It was also unreasonable to take into account the past relationship between N and the resident. The resident had made it clear N and she had been friends and hoped they would continue to be so, but needed support to deal with N’s son’s behaviour. She had made clear the context of her report.
The then communication from the HO gave the impression that the landlord had spoken to N and, as a consequence, changed its attitude and therefore “taken sides”. Stating that N’s son’s behaviour had not caused the resident any direct harm may have been the assessment of the police. However, it left the resident with the impression the landlord was denying her lived experience. Causing psychological harm is a recognised and relevant harm, certainly within injunction proceedings. In addition, it was dismissive of the resident’s request, her mental health and account of her personal history.
The landlord, in that exchange of 15 May 2024, did not evidence proper consideration to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 or to treat her with dignity and respect. This was inappropriate. The resident explained the impact on her of the first HO’s approach, that she felt not listened to and disrespected and that the landlord was not taking her report, or her disability and distress, seriously.
It was reasonable that, in its subsequent correspondence and Stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its service failings. It reasonably accepted that the resident’s baking activities were not relevant to her request or the complaint. It acknowledged the HO should not have questioned the resident’s disability. It also set out “lessons learnt” and its standards. It was clear in its stance. It demonstrated that it took the resident’s report seriously and had given due consideration to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It agreed to communicate with her by email unless it was necessary to speak to her.
The landlord also accepted it should have sent N a warning letter and not have closed the case. It offered compensation of £600 consisting of £500 for the impact on the resident and £100 for not following its ASB policy and procedure.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Almost immediately following the resident’s complaint, the landlord took reasonable steps. The landlord rectified the situation promptly by engaging with the resident and continuing with the investigation. It addressed the case at a senior level. It allocated a new ASB officer. The landlord looked at making enquiries with the police and the resident’s advice agency she had referred to. The resident reported that the regional manager who took the matter up at that point was understanding and expressed empathy.
We consider that the level of compensation of £600 was reasonable, within our own guidelines and demonstrated that it took the matter seriously. This coupled with the landlord’s apology, its recognition of its errors and its actions represented reasonable redress.
The landlord’s subsequent actions included:
1. On 19 June 2024, the resident reported an incident a fight between N’s son and his stepfather where N’s son was arrested. The landlord made further enquiries of the resident and the police.
2. The landlord allocated a new ASB officer.
3. There followed an exchange between the second HO and resident regarding information about the case. This exchange continued in July 2024 and August 2024.
4. It offered “target hardening measures” on a number of occasions.
5. On 12 July 2024, it spoke to N. It warned her that it may be seeking an injunction in relation to her son.
6. On 16 July 2024, the landlord took the view that the bail conditions may protect the resident but, nevertheless, it reasonably sought further information. It sought legal advice. It prepared its instructions to its solicitors. It advised the resident that if N’s son appeared she should call the police in the meantime as only the police could offer an urgent response. It made further enquiries of the resident and offered support.
7. On 19 July 2024, the landlord said it would go ahead with the injunction. On 24 July 2024, it told the resident that it was trying to find out N’s son’s address, as it would be required to serve the application for an injunction.
We note that in July and August 2024, the resident felt the need to chase the landlord. On 7 August 2024, she asked to escalate the complaint. While the following events occurred after the landlord’s complaint process had finished, they were closely connected to the complaint. Moreover, the landlord had promised to “act robustly” as proper resolution to the complaint. We have therefore considered those events as part of our investigation.
While the landlord had made a decision to pursue an injunction in July 2024, it had not made the application in August 2024. We have noted this delay. In August 2024, the landlord undertook preparatory steps for issuing an injunction including liaising with its solicitors and asking the resident for further information. We also note the complexities, including that the landlord required N’s son’s address and that it was clarifying what were the bail conditions. The injunction may have simply duplicated the bail conditions. It also offered protective measures in the meantime. On 6 September 2024, it concluded that the bail conditions did not protect the resident sufficiently. While we consider that the landlord may have been able to expedite matters more quickly, there were reasons for the time spent.
On 2, 6, 24 and 30 September 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. There is no evidence that she replied. This was not disputed. In its final email, the landlord asked whether the resident was “ok”. On 7 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out it had tried to contact her and was closing the case. It also contacted the resident by telephone and offered a welfare check. The resident said she did not require a visit.
We consider that the landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord closed the case after it made those attempts. It could not progress the application without her. We do not attribute fault to the landlord for not taking further action.
In June 2025, the landlord informed us that on 7 November 2024, after the case closure in October 2024, the resident sent an email regarding past traumas of a “highly sensitive nature” and therefore it did not provide it to us. The ASB officer offered the resident a management move which was reasonable. It is not disputed that the resident declined the offer of a move.
On 16 February 2025 the resident told us that by the time the landlord would have acted, she felt that it would have been pointless to progress it. She also informed us that N’s son had since moved back into N’s property. In May 2025, she told us that N’s grandson had also moved into the property and was causing issues. On 3 June 2025, the resident told us that she made a report to the police in January 2025 about N’s son, but not to the landlord.
We note that the resident had lost faith in the landlord on the basis it did not take steps in February 2024. However, it was not disputed that she had not reported the ASB until the end of April 2024. The landlord had acknowledged its service failings of mid-May 2024 and re-opened the ASB case. We found that although there was some delay, most of it was explained. We also recognise making a court application can be complex. While we appreciate the prospect of going to court was difficult for the resident, it was the resident’s decision not to pursue the matter. It is open to the resident to make fresh reports about N’s grandson.
The most that may have been lost in any delay was an opportunity to make an application for an injunction without giving notice to N’s son. However, that is a higher bar than an injunction application with notice. Either way, the landlord could not have prevented the incidents in June 2024. Those incidents gave impetus to the case. Following those incidents, there was no evidence of further reports. The landlord was prepared to make its application but the resident ceased to engage at the beginning of September 2024.
While there was a delay to the Stage 1 response, the regional manager dealing with the resident in mid-May and June 2024 was writing to the resident and making enquiries. The resident found his involvement beneficial. We do not find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have noted the resident’s circumstances. We understand the impact of N’s son’s behaviour on the resident. However, we do not find there were further significant service failures other than those acknowledged by the landlord of May 2024. We find that the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable redress, which appropriately recognised the failings in this complaint.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and her request for a reasonable adjustment (to be contacted by email only, not phone).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should refer to this case in its staff training in order to avoid a repetition of the same errors and to consider any improvements to its internal processes in expediting injunction proceedings.
We ask the landlord to provide feedback to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks in relation to the above recommendation.