Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202322465)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322465

The Guinness Partnership Limited

10 April 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerning her neighbour below.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom flat, within a block. She has PTSD, anxiety, and stress related conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. At the end of June and July 2022 the resident reported various concerns about her neighbour. This included loud talking, screaming, and shouting. The landlord said the resident would need to record the noise on its noise application. It also asked her to complete regular diary sheets. It added that it was in contact with relevant external agencies concerning this matter. In September 2022 and October 2022, the resident reported more incidents like the ones above. She also raised concerns about the neighbour’s boyfriend staying at the property and having to give access to the block to paramedics and other agencies. The landlord subsequently carried out an action plan with the resident and visited the neighbour in December 2022.
  3. The resident reported further incidents in June and July 2023. The landlord visited the neighbour on 12 July 2023. They denied the allegations. On 18 July 2023 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She felt the landlord departments had failed to communicate with each other, and a lack of consistency in handling her reports since November 2021.
  4. On 29 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
    1. It investigated the resident’s previous noise related complaints between February and November 2021.
    2. It investigated her 3 April 2023 report and concluded that a noise recording of arguing amounted to a nuisance. This was addressed with the neighbour.
    3. It determined that the other sound recordings did not amount to excessive noise nuisance.
    4. In relation to the resident’s second report on 2 June 2023 it listened to recordings and completed multiple home visits to the neighbour, however, there was no substantial evidence to take the case any further.
    5. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets and use the noise app to record evidence. It also suggested that she contact environmental health (EH).
    6. The case was closed, and without the resident’s cooperation regarding evidence gathering it could not progress the case any further.
  5. On 31 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said the ASB was ongoing. She wanted the landlord to investigate its handling of her reports from 2021 onwards. She felt the landlord was delaying dealing with the ASB. Throughout August 2023 the resident continued to report noise related incidents regarding her neighbour.
  6. On 11 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It said its stage 1 response appropriately responded to her complaint and explained why it had closed the case. It agreed that its Customer Liaison Manager (CLM) would manage any new reports, however, the resident would not send the diary sheets or let it pick them up. It said that if the resident did not engage with it, it could not take any definitive action. It was satisfied that it had reviewed the resident’s reports and offered advice in line with its policies and procedures.
  7. In the resident’s referral to us, she said the situation had not improved. She felt that the landlord had failed to review its ASB process and handling of noise complaints from November 2021. She explained that she was emotionally exhausted and was unable to complete the diary sheets any longer. She felt there had been communication failures between the landlord departments and a lack of consistency in handling her reports. As an outcome, she wanted compensation, an apology, and a way forward to resolve this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she wanted it to investigate its handling of her reports of ASB from November 2021 onwards. We recognise that this situation has been going on for a number of years. However, under our Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of reports from July 2022 up to the landlord’s 11 September 2023 final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerning her neighbour below

  1. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, its our role to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work with residents to explain ASB and its approach, so they understand what they can expect from the landlord and what it expects from them. It says it will be clear about the circumstances in which it may act. It will assess the level of harm the anti-social behaviour caused to individuals when the matter is reported and will consider the needs of each household member for all households involved, including the alleged perpetrator. It says it will work with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour. It adds that any action will be proportionate to the severity, impact, and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case.
  3. While the landlord may not be expected to respond to each report individually, it should take proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s July 2022 reports within a reasonable timescale. It said some issues needed addressing, and it was in contact with the relevant agencies about this. Given the circumstances, this was an appropriate initial response. The evidence showed regular interactions between the landlord and a relevant external agences involved with the neighbour throughout August 2022. This was reasonable. The landlord acted in line with policy by attempting to work with other agencies to prevent ASB.
  4. The resident emailed further incidents to the landlord throughout July 2022. In response, the landlord informed the resident that she would need to complete regular diary sheets and record the noise on its noise app. It added that without this evidence, there was little action it could take. It is clear from the landlord’s records that it had informed the resident previously that this type of evidence was needed. Given the frequency and content of the resident’s emails, as well as the difficulties in this case, we consider this an appropriate approach. Further, it clearly set out its expectations to the resident, in line with its policy. The landlord also completed a risk assessment. This was appropriate and demonstrated it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  5. On 22 September 2022 the resident raised concerns about the neighbour’s boyfriend ‘squatting’ in the property. The landlord investigated this promptly. It found that the neighbour had allowed them to stay there. It informed the resident of this and asked her to contact it if they caused ASB. This was fair. It clearly explained what evidence it needed to investigate any reports of ASB, such as dates and times. This was reasonable, and it again set out its expectations in line with its policy.
  6. The resident reported further incidents in October 2022. The landlord responded to these reports within a reasonable timescale and carried out another risk assessment. This was appropriate given her continued concerns. And it demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord’s records said it had ‘agreed actions’ with the resident. However, it is unclear what these actions were. This may indicate issues with the landlord’s record-keeping. Nevertheless, the landlord had regular contact with an appropriate agency during October and November 2022. Its discussions with them showed it was trying to find a reasonable solution, considering both the resident’s and neighbour’s needs. We think this was a reasonable approach, in the circumstances.
  7. On 18 December 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property. They disputed the allegations. The landlord then contacted the resident shortly afterwards to update her on the outcome of this visit. This was appropriate. On 18 January 2023 the landlord told the resident that it intended to refer the case to an ASB working group (ASBARC). But there was no evidence that it did so at the time.
  8. The resident also informed the landlord that she had noise recordings and diary sheets, but she was unable to email them over. In response the landlord said it would speak with a colleague to see if they could visit her to obtain them from her. Yet, there is no evidence this happened. This is concerning, and the landlord missed an opportunity to collect evidence. This would have caused frustration to the resident. She likely spent a considerable time obtaining evidence in the format the landlord said it required.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident had made a report about her neighbour on 3 April 2023. However, we have not seen evidence of this report or any evidence to confirm the actions the landlord said it took. While the resident did not dispute the landlord’s actions, this again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, and we have made a recommendation below.
  10. The resident reported more issues with her neighbour between June and July 2023. This included reports about her having to let in external agencies into the block at all times of the day. In response, the landlord did a joint visit with the appropriate agency. This was reasonable. It also appropriately informed the resident of its continued partnership with this agency to try to resolve things. The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable during this period. It responded within reasonable timescales and advised the resident about recording evidence. It also offered to pick up ‘notes’ from the resident about the neighbour’s alleged behaviour. This was fair.
  11. Overall, we think the landlord’s actions were proportionate, given the circumstances of the case. It consistently set out its expectations about the evidence needed and why. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to collect evidence from the resident. There was also no evidence of any communication or action from the landlord following its 18 January 2023 conversation with the resident. While this would not have changed the overall outcome, this failing likely caused her frustration. The landlord should have also referred the case to ASBRAC sooner, and as it indicated, it would. This amounts to service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerning her neighbour below.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the frustration caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB concerning her neighbour below.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).