Midland Heart Limited — case 202453501

Decision Case ID 202453501 Decision type Investigation Landlord Midland Heart Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 10 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat within a block. The doors to the block’s bin store were insecure, which allowed rough sleepers to gain entry and cause anti-social behaviour (ASB). The resident raised a complaint as the ASB escalated and waste started to accumulate. In his complaint, he also asked the landlord to confirm what upgrades had been made to the CCTV and explain how they would improve security.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports of bin store door repairs and excessive waste. reports of ASB. information request relating to CCTV. complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that: The landlord made an offer of redress which appropriately resolved the handling of reports of bin store door repairs and excessive waste. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord made an offer of redress which appropriately resolved the resident’s information request relating to CCTV.

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of bin store door repairs and excessive waste The landlord acknowledged delays completing repairs to the bin store doors and awarded appropriate compensation. Reports of ASB The landlord did not demonstrate that it worked with the police, as its policy says it will, nor that it met the commitments made at stage 2. Information request relating to CCTV A lack of clarity on the CCTV meant that the resident had to chase for a definitive answer.

The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused and awarded appropriate compensation. Complaint handling Delays providing complaint responses were minimal and there was no evidence of a detrimental impact on the resident. 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 10 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures identified in this report in relation to its handling of reports of ASB.

£100 it offered at stage 2, on 24 March 2025. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 10 March 2026 3 Completing the works If works to the block entrance are not yet completed, including new security lighting and installation of fencing and a new door, the landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date.

If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. If these works have already been completed, the landlord should provide evidence of the date of completion.

No later than 10 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £170 compensation it awarded through the complaints process if it has not done so already. The £170 compensation was awarded as follows: £100 at stage 2 (1 October 2025) for time and trouble reporting communal issues. £70 at stage 2 (1 October 2025) for poor communication. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 21 January 2025 The resident raised a complaint. He said rough sleepers were gaining entry to the block and using communal areas to sleep and take drugs. He also said the grounds and communal areas were full of rubbish and this was attracting pests. He wanted the landlord to improve building security, address the ASB and ensure communal areas were clear of rubbish. He also asked the landlord to demonstrate how recent CCTV upgrades he was paying for via his service charge had improved security.

12 February 2025 The landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said: The main door to the block was secure and the trade button was disabled at 12pm. It had received no recent reports of unauthorised entry to the building. It had opened an ASB case and was completing ad hoc out of hour patrols of the area. It had cleared the rubbish and completed a site inspection, which found no pest or vermin issues. It had raised repairs for the bin store after finding a damaged door and a broken internal light.

It was conducting a review of the CCTV upgrades to verify how the recent service charge increase was allocated and would provide an update when it was concluded. It would improve outdoor lighting to prevent loitering at the entrance of the block. 14 February 2025 The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said rough sleepers continued to use the bin stores because they were insecure and rubbish kept accumulating. He believed the landlord had increased service charge payments for CCTV without knowing what improvements had been made.

He wanted a refund of these charges if it could not explain what it had upgraded. 24 March 2025 The landlord provided a stage 2 response. It said: Bin store repairs were complete, and it had received no further reports of unauthorised access. It would install additional, temporary CCTV within 14 days. Outdoor lighting would be upgraded within 4 weeks. It would continue to visit weekly to monitor and remove fly tipped items. Out of hours patrols reported one rough sleeper in the block, who was moved on.

It had sent out ASB questionnaires to residents in the block but had received no replies. It had not contacted the resident on 27 February 2025 as agreed. It apologised for this and awarded £100 compensation. The CCTV was operational but had not been upgraded to the live monitoring system which residents were paying for through their service charge. It would investigate if service charge refunds were required. 1 August 2025 The resident raised a new complaint. He said the bin store doors had not been replaced and were now overflowing with rubbish.

While the rubbish stopped rough sleepers staying there, youths were congregating under the canopy over the main door entrance smoking cannabis. He asked the landlord to confirm when the bin store doors would be replaced and rubbish would be removed. 19 August 2025 The landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said: There had been delays installing the replacement bin store doors due to internal communication errors. It would provide a further update on 1 September 2025. The council could not collect rubbish due to vehicles blocking the bin stores and preventing access.

It had taken steps to resolve this, including complaining to the council, installing no parking signs and completing regular visits. A security light would be installed on 18 August 2025 to deter youths from congregating. It was considering installing a new door and window to the canopy area of the main door to prevent youths from using it as shelter. It would be repairing the CCTV and would provide a further update on 1 September 2025. It was reviewing services charges and considering refunds and would award compensation for time and trouble when this was complete.

27 August 2025 The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said CCTV had not worked for an extended period despite service charges being applied. He felt this had left the area unsafe. He also said communal repairs were incomplete and the landlord had not awarded compensation. 1 October 2025 The landlord provided a stage 2 response. It said: It was sorry there had been a period that CCTV was not working. It had provided refunds to tenants on 8 September 2025 and installed temporary CCTV.

It had increased out of hours patrols and installed new parking signs. Both bin store doors had been replaced. A new door and fencing would be fitted to the canopy to block it off, and a new security light would be fitted at the entrance of the block. It awarded £170 compensation. This was £100 for time and trouble, and £70 for poor communication. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought his case to us. He felt the compensation the landlord had offered did not adequately reflect the length of time he spent dealing with the issues and wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of his complaints.

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 Bin store door repairs and excessive waste Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy said it would carry out inspections to ensure communal areas are safe, clean and well maintained.

The tenancy agreement confirmed it was responsible for communal area repairs. The local council was responsible for household waste collection. On 21 January 2025, the resident raised concerns that the bin stores were insecure and rubbish was overflowing, which was attracting pests. At the time, council bin workers were staging strikes, resulting in a backlog of waste collections. The insecure doors also allowed rough sleepers to access and use the area to sleep and take drugs.

This element and the impact the ASB may have had on the resident is assessed further under the ASB complaint point below. The following week, the landlord contacted the council to request the rubbish be collected and arranged for any evidence of fly tipping in the area to be removed. This was an appropriate initial response. It showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously and took action to resolve the situation. The landlord attended on 4 February 2025 and confirmed rubbish had been collected and there were no pest issues.

In a multi team meeting the same day, it set actions to raise a repair for a broken bin store door and arrange a litter pick to remove the remaining rubbish. After the resident reported fly tipping and non-residents disposing of waste in the bin stores on 14 and 18 February 2025, the landlord arranged regular staff visits during the day and out of hours. It attended and removed highlighted waste immediately. This was appropriate and showed it was taking steps to resolve the issue.

The evidence showed the landlord completed repairs to the bin store lock on 20 February 2025 and said the door was in working order.The resident disputed this, reporting that the doors remained insecure and rough sleepers continued to access the bin stores. By May 2025, the landlord acknowledged both bin doors required replacement, which indicated its earlier claim of completed repairs was either inaccurate or the works were inadequate. The lack of clarity and delay in resolving the issue resulted in the resident raising an additional complaint and caused unnecessary time and trouble.

The landlord confirmed that one bin store door was replaced in August 2025, and the second was replaced on 29 September 2025. This was around 8 months after the resident first reported the issue. Although its repairs policy did not specify a timeframe, its delay in securing the bin stores was unreasonable and led to additional concerns, including fly tipping and ASB. The impact of the broken door itself was minimal on the resident, as the issue related to an external communal area.

However, in keeping with its repairs policy, the landlord had a responsibility to complete the repair as promptly as possible and keep the resident informed. In its stage 2 response on 1 October 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it had not kept the resident updated, and delays completing the repairs meant he had to chase for a resolution. It apologised and awarded £100 compensation for the time and trouble of reporting communal issues, and £70 for poor communication following his reports.

When a landlord has not attributed specific amounts to each part of the complaint, our guidance says we are able to attribute different amounts to different categories, as we consider fair and reasonable. The resident’s complaint addressed a number of communal issues, however, the landlord failed to identify how the £170 was split between them. We have found an equal spilt of £85 each for the reporting of bin store issues and CCTV to be appropriate. The compensation the landlord awarded was in line with its compensation policy for minor failings that have since been resolved, and it was consistent with our remedies guidance.

This was appropriate and demonstrated it had considered both the impact its failings had on the resident and the requirements of its compensation policy. The landlord demonstrated a positive approach in dealing with excessive waste and fly tipping. It liaised with the council to ensure they met their obligations in relation to waste collection, implemented regular patrols to monitor fly tipping, and arranged timely removal of rubbish. While the delays securing the bin stores were unsatisfactory, the landlord acknowledged them in its final response and awarded compensation in line with its policy.

Complaint Anti–social behaviour Finding Maladministration The landlord’s ASB policy states that, when investigating ASB, it will: Complete an initial risk assessment. Carry out an investigation, speak to the resident, and gather further evidence. Agree actions with the resident and keep them updated. Offer support and explain its decision before closing the case. On 21 January 2025, the resident reported that rough sleepers were entering the building using the trade button and using communal areas to take drugs.

He said this activity made tenants feel threatened. He added that they were sleeping in the bin stores as the doors were insecure. The landlord opened an ASB case on 27 January 2025 and made a referral to its out of hours security contractor. It advised the resident he could contact the contractor, using passwords it had provided, to report anyone in or around the building that should not be there, and they would attend to move them on. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.

It showed the landlord had taken the resident’s reports seriously and put measures in place to ensure any further incidents could be addressed promptly, while also enabling the collection of evidence of unauthorised individuals on site. The landlord inspected the block on 4 February 2025. It confirmed the door to the flats was secure and the trade button was operating correctly. It raised a job to repair damaged bin store doors. This showed that it responded to the residents reports by checking the security of the building and addressing issues that could contribute to unauthorised access.

In an action plan dated 5 February 2025, the landlord agreed to send an ASB questionnaire out to the tenants to gather further information about the reported issues. This was sent out on 12 February. This was appropriate. It showed the landlord was gathering evidence and making enquiries to see if other tenants had been affected by the issues raised, as per the requirements of its ASB policy. The landlord’s initial response to the ASB reports was reasonable and in line with its policy.

It opened a case, contacted the resident, agreed actions and took steps to gather further evidence. On 23 March 2025, the resident reported that youths were congregating at the entrance to the flats, blocking access and taking drugs. He said he was unable to report the incident to the out of hours team as he did not have a current password. This was unreasonable. The landlord had committed, in a previous action plan dated 19 February 2025, to issuing passwords to the resident.

His inability to report the incident was a missed opportunity for the landlord to gather evidence and likely led to the resident feeling unsupported. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 March 2025. It acknowledged the resident did not have passwords for the period between 16 and 24 March and that it had not contacted the resident on 27 February as it said it would. It awarded £100 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for minor to moderate failings.

In its response, the landlord said it would install temporary CCTV within 14 days to help address the issues. It made attempts to install this on 27 March 2025 but determined the camera being installed was not suitable. To be able to gather evidence of both ASB and fly tipping, it made the decision instead to install a CCTV tower. However, this was not installed until 29 September 2025, around 6 months after it had committed to installing temporary CCTV within 14 days. This delay was unreasonable and was likely to have left the resident feeling that it was not acting promptly to address his ASB reports.

In May 2025, the resident reported that rough sleepers living in the bin stores had been seen engaging in inappropriate intimate behaviour. In June 2025, he said the rough sleepers had begun to act aggressively. In addition, on 16 June 2025, the landlord received a report from its out of hours patrollers regarding homelessness and suspected prostitution related activity in the block. These reports related to criminal activity, over which the landlord did not have the most effective enforcement powers.

Its ASB policy said it would work in partnership with the police, who may have more appropriate powers to address such behaviour. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to liaise with the police and share any relevant information it held to help tackle the ASB. The evidence does not demonstrate that it did so. Between 17 June and September 2025, the landlord showed it continued to work with the resident in relation to ASB. It updated action plans, maintained regular contact and made referrals to agencies that work with rough sleepers.

This was appropriate and in line with its policy. In its stage 1 response on 19 August 2025, the landlord said it was arranging quotes to block off the canopy used by youths for shelter, which was blocking residents access to the flats. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that says it can consider estate improvements to improve security. In its final stage 2 response on 1 October 2025, the landlord confirmed it had replaced bin store doors to secure the area and installed additional CCTV.

This was reasonable and showed it followed through on commitments it had previously made. In the same response, the landlord also said it would install a new security light at the entrance of the block and fit a new door and fencing to close off the canopy. It is not clear whether these works have been completed, and therefore we cannot be satisfied that the landlord met the commitments it made at stage 2. While the landlord followed some of the relevant actions and requirements set out in its ASB policy, it did not follow them all.

This meant it missed opportunities to address the ASB sooner and more effectively. The landlord also failed to fulfil the commitments it made during the complaint process within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. Although the landlord awarded compensation in its first stage 2 response, the amount offered was not proportionate to the additional failings identified. For this reason, further compensation of £200 has been ordered.

The amount awarded reflects the landlord’s compensation policy for moderate failings that have had a negative impact on the resident. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident. Complaint Information request relating to CCTV Finding Reasonable redress As part of his complaint the resident asked the landlord to explain how recent CCTV upgrades, payable to him via service charge, had improved security in the area as he was experiencing issues with ASB.

In its stage 1 response on 12 February 2025, the landlord said it had started a review of the CCTV. It noted that there was an older camera in the block and it needed to check if this had been included in the recent upgrade. In the stage 2 response on 24 March 2025, the landlord said the system was working but had not been upgraded to the live monitoring system, a service the residents paid for via service charge. It said it would assess if the system could be upgraded and would refund service charges if it found residents had been overcharged.

On 6 August 2025, the landlord told the resident the CCTV had been decommissioned for some time and it was looking to remove the system. However, on 13 August it said the removal would no longer go ahead as the system was repairable. It told the resident it was looking into when the system stopped working so it could issue refunds to tenants. The mixed messages and lack of clarity on the CCTV between February and August 2025 likely frustrated the resident and caused additional time and trouble as he chased to get a definitive position from the landlord on the matter.

In its second stage 2 response on 1 October 2025, the landlord confirmed it had issued service charge refunds to tenants on 8 September 2025. This was appropriate, as although the impact of non-functioning CCTV was minimal for the resident, it showed it followed through on the commitment it made in its previous stage 2 response. In the response, the landlord also recognised the inconvenience pursuing the matter had on the resident. It apologised and awarded compensation. As previously explained, we have apportioned £85 of this for the reporting of CCTV issues.

The compensation the landlord awarded was in line with its compensation policy for minor failings that have since been resolved, and it was consistent with our remedies guidance. This was appropriate and demonstrated it had considered both the impact its failings had on the resident and the requirements of its compensation policy Overall, we find the steps the landlord has taken and the compensation it has offered are overall proportionate to the identified failings and amounted to reasonable redress.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s first stage 1 response was 1 day late, and it acknowledged the first stage 2 request 1 day late.

The delays were minimal, and there was no evidence they had a detrimental effect on the resident. Responses for the second stage 1 and 2 complaints were provided within timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests for information relating to the CCTV was confusing and indicated record keeping issues, or a failure to carefully review information.

The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed, taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management. Communication The communication over CCTV was confusing and often contradictory. The landlord could consider reviewing all the information available before updating residents, to ensure updates are accurate.