From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

One Housing Group Limited (202323952)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323952

One Housing Group Limited

21 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a high rise block. She lives with her partner. She became the joint tenant at the property in 2005.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman that she has reported noise nuisance from the flat above to her landlord since 2017. The landlord has provided records of noise nuisance from 2022.
  3. In July 2023 the resident told the landlord that her neighbour was making noise every night between 11pm and 3am. The noise included opening and closing patio doors, a washing machine running late at night, taps running constantly, and children jumping off furniture. She said the neighbour had laminate flooring which made the noise worse. The resident also alleged the neighbour’s children were throwing things from the windows.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 July 2023. She highlighted some of her ASB reports. She felt the landlord was not resolving the ASB.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It listed the actions taken to resolve the ASB. It said the neighbour had covered the laminate flooring with rugs. It explained the thresholds as to what it did and did not consider ASB. It reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and determined her reports were household noise. It recommended the resident consider mediation.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint on the same day. She reiterated her concerns and highlighted where she believed the neighbour’s behaviour was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It listed the actions it had taken between June and August 2023. This included visits to the neighbour and offers to provide a mat to reduce the noise from the washing machine. It recommended the resident download the noise app or provide diary sheets to evidence where she felt the noise was unreasonable. It offered to provide noise monitoring equipment. It reiterated its offer of mediation.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2024. Between September 2023 and August 2024, the resident continued to report noise nuisance to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has provided evidence that she was unhappy with the landlord’s ASB investigations in 2024. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. We have considered the period July 2023 to January 2024 in our investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions. The resident may wish to pursue any current issues directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received within the timeframe of a complaint. We consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s neighbourhood management procedure sets out what it considers ASB and how it will respond. It considers reports related to children playing, toilets flushing, doors slamming, or noise from washing machines as local noise nuisance. In cases where the noise is persistent or happening between 11pm and 7am, it may consider the reports as ASB. It considers excessive domestic noise and the use of laminate flooring as a breach of tenancy.
  2. The landlord offers solutions to this type of ASB, including:
    1. Sending letters to the responsible household.
    2. Offering both households mediation.
    3. Noise quieting measures.
    4. Mutual neighbour agreements.

ASB

  1. When investigating reports of ASB, it is good practice across the sector to interview the party reporting the issues, conduct a risk assessment, and agree an action plan.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it received reports from the resident regarding ASB in May 2023. It responded promptly and contracted the neighbour to discuss the allegations. It received further reports of ASB on 25 July 2023. It did not record a complainant interview, risk assessment, or action plan. However, it called the neighbour again on 31 July 2023 and visited them to discuss the allegations on 4 August 2023. Its records from meeting with the neighbour show it discussed the resident’s allegations and considered the impact of the neighbour’s choice of flooring. It recommended mediation during its calls to the neighbour in July 2023. It showed that it took her initial reports seriously and took action to resolve the ASB.
  3. Despite the landlord’s action early in the timeline, its response at stage 1 was more dismissive of the resident’s reports. It attributed the reports to domestic noise that would be ordinary when living in flatted accommodation. It was unfair to make this association in response to the resident’s reports, which referred to noise between 11pm and 7am.
  4. However, it was fair to set out what it would and would not consider ASB. It was reasonable to suggest the resident pursue its offer of mediation. It appropriately offered to provide measures to reduce the impact of noise on the resident by fitting a mat under the neighbour’s washing machine. This meant there was limited impact in it not recognising the noise occurred during anti-social hours.
  5. During visits to the neighbour in August 2023, the landlord noted that they had installed laminate flooring in the living room and hallway. Amongst the resident’s reports, she said the neighbour’s children jumping from a chair onto the floor was a serious problem. In accordance with its neighbourhood management procedure, it could have considered noise quieting measures. It may have directed the neighbour to its tenancy conditions and told them to remove the laminate flooring. It did not, and this was a shortcoming.
  6. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what action it took in response to the resident’s reports from 16 and 27 August 2023. It did not address these reports in its stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. Instead, it focussed on its actions earlier in the timeline and its findings from visiting the neighbour. It should have addressed the resident’s continued reports. However, it did reasonably request the resident provide evidence of the noise using its noise app or monitoring equipment. It appropriately directed the resident to consider mediation.
  7. The resident chose not to use the noise monitoring equipment or noise application. In the circumstances, it would have been difficult for the landlord to take any more serious action. Despite the constraints, the landlord continued to visit the neighbour and sought additional means to reduce the nuisance caused to the resident. This included providing mats to dampen the noise transference. It appropriately acted on the resident’s reports and showed that it took them seriously.
  8. The landlord’s records show that in August 2024 it returned to the neighbour and offered help to replace the laminate with carpet. Although the landlord could have made this offer in 2023, it showed that it was focused on resolving the issues by suggesting this option.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. This Service empathises with the resident who faced difficult circumstances. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have understandably caused her. It is clear that the noise nuisance issues had a significant impact. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available to this Service, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its procedures to try to help the resident. It took the resident’s reports seriously. It took reasonable steps to reduce the impact of the noise nuisance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reflect on its approach to reports of ASB. It should consider including a requirement to interview the victim and alleged perpetrator when investigating reports of ASB. It should ensure that it conducts a risk assessment and agree an action plan with victims of ASB.