The Guinness Partnership Limited (202320830)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320830

The Guinness Partnership Limited

9 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 3-bed house under an assured tenancy which began on 22 November 2021.
3. The landlord notes that the resident has mobility issues and, throughout the course of this complaint, the resident has expressed that the situation has contributed to feelings of depression and anxiety for the resident and her children.
4. The complaint centres around reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the resident, related to their neighbour. The resident said that the neighbour was generating a range of noise nuisances including loud music, shouting and sexual acts.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 August 2023 in which she said that she was dissatisfied with:
   1. How her noise complaint was being handled by the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team.
   2. Being passed between the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team and the local authority’s environmental health team for resolution.
   3. The landlord’s level of communication in response to the evidence that she had submitted, including noise recordings. In particular, she noted that she had needed to repeatedly chase for responses.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 September 2023 in which it said:
   1. ASB had first been reported on 26 August 2022, however because this was more than 6 months previously, it was outside of the scope of its complaint policy. The landlord said it would only consider the more recent reports of ASB.
   2. Its customer liaison officer had spoken with the neighbour when the noise was first reported and this had improved matters.
   3. In response to recent reports of ASB, the landlord had put an action plan in place on 22 March 2023. This had included recommending that the resident report noise to the local authority’s environmental health team.
   4. Its tenancy enforcement caseworker had contacted the resident on 13 June 2023 to advise her about using the noise app to record any further issues with noise from the neighbour.
   5. It had noted that it had not responded to several callbacks within its timescales. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation.
   6. It said that learning had been passed to the relevant team.
   7. It agreed that its tenancy enforcement caseworker would contact the resident by 8 September 2023 to discuss the case, and would also contact the neighbour about the concerns raised.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 20 October 2023 by contacting the landlord’s chief executive. She said:
   1. She felt her complaints and concerns about noise had been ignored.
   2. She had sent over 50 recordings of noise-related ASB. In response to this the landlord had written 3 letters to the neighbour, but the issues were persisting.
   3. Her case had been passed from the landlord to environmental health, who had passed her back to the landlord.
   4. Her children were awaiting counselling for the impact that the ongoing ASB was having on them. The resident said that her daughter had recently run away from home due to the level of noise but was found shortly after.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2023 in which it said:
   1. Its stage 1 complaint response had been correct and issued within the landlord’s policy timescales; however, it could have given more detail about its ASB policy and processes. The landlord outlined the processes it had completed to date.
   2. On 27 April 2023, the resident had contacted the landlord to advise that the noise levels had decreased, but had subsequently returned to normal.
   3. On 27 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that some of the recording provided did show excessive noise. It said the resident should keep recording and reporting these issues and that it would write to the neighbour to raise the concerns.
   4. On 25 August 2023 the landlord’s tenancy enforcement caseworker contacted the resident to ask her to continue recording the noise for a further 2 weeks. The caseworker also recommended that the resident contact environmental health for support.
   5. On 8 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had not received any further reports and would be closing the case.
   6. On receipt of the resident’s email to its chief executive on 20 October 2023, the landlord had re-opened a new ASB case and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
   7. Having reopened the case, the landlord had recommended that the resident contact environmental health as it had more powers to deal with noise nuisance. It said that it could also provide noise monitoring equipment and issue and enforce abatement notices if the noise did not improve.
   8. It recognised there had been at least 3 occasions when callbacks that the resident had requested had been delayed or not been actioned.
   9. Overall, its actions were appropriate, however it acknowledged repeated issues in its communication. It apologised for this and offered £75 compensation. It said that it had shared learning with the relevant team and would continue to support the resident with any ongoing ASB.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2023 seeking additional action from the landlord to address the ongoing noise nuisances.
10. Following the resident’s escalation to our Service, the landlord conducted a further review of the case on 3 July 2024 in which it said:
    1. It sincerely apologised for “the service [she] received and for the personal impact this has had on [her]”.
    2. The stage 1 response had detailed that learning would be shared internally to improve the landlord’s processes; however, this learning was not relevant to this complaint and had been added in error.
    3. Its stage 2 response had explained the processes it had completed but had failed to respond to the poor handling of the resident’s concerns.
    4. Its communication throughout this complaint was “extremely poor” and it had not previously considered the impact this had on the resident.
    5. Its tenancy enforcement team would be conducting a review to identify improvements that could be made to its service.
    6. It was offering revised compensation of £750 comprised of:
       1. £150 for its poor communication.
       2. £200 for failures in complaint handling.
       3. £400 for failures in handling the resident’s ASB reports.
    7. It had identified learning and training related to its tenancy enforcement model and complaint handling practices would be applying this in due course. It had also undertaken additional recruitment and altered its risk assessment processes in ASB cases.

Assessment and findings

11. During the course of this complaint, the resident raised several reports that her neighbour was generating excessive noise which included loud music, shouting, banging against the wall and the noise of sexual acts. The resident told this Service that this had continued intermittently up to the time of this investigation.
12. It is important to note that normal household noise is not covered by the landlord’s policy or the legal definition of statutory noise nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 defines a statutory noise nuisance as noise that unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use of a home, or that injuries (or could injure) someone’s health.
13. The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. The policy specifically excludes “day to day living noise which is not excessive or unreasonable”.
14. Within its policy, the landlord says that it will communicate with all parties, act in a victim-focussed way and work in partnership with other agencies. For all reports of ASB, the landlord says that it will carry out a risk assessment and use a full range of methods and legal powers available, where these are appropriate.
15. The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Whilst the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
16. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether noise reported by a resident amount to anti-social behaviour or statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
17. When receiving reports of anti-social behaviour or noise nuisance, landlords should carry out an investigation into the reports. This may include speaking to both parties to gather their version of events, speaking to any witnesses, reviewing diary logs or noise recordings, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour can be extremely limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good industry practice.
18. The resident said that the ASB and noise had a significant impact on her and her children, including:
    1. Making the resident feel anxious, depressed and wanting to leave her property.
    2. Contributing to her daughter running away from home on one occasion due to the level of noise and the disruption caused.
    3. Subjecting her children to the noise of sexual acts and pornography played through the wall.
    4. On Halloween, the resident reported that her son was threated with a knife by an occupant of the neighbour’s house during Halloween activities and door-knocking. This matter was reported to the police as a potential crime.
    5. Requiring her children to attend counselling, due to the ongoing noise.
19. The evidence shows that the landlord took several actions in response to the resident’s reports. This included:
    1. Opening 3 separate ASB cases on 22 February 2023, 22 May 2023 and 20 October 2023 respectively.
    2. Arranging for the resident to use the Noise App to make recordings of the noise she was experiencing.
    3. Writing to the neighbour on 3 occasions, advising of the complaints and warning against further noise nuisances.
    4. Advising the resident to report her concerns to the local authority’s environmental health team, for its assistance with installing noise monitoring equipment and taking legal or enforcement action if required.
    5. Contacted the local authority environmental health team directly to discuss the concerns. The evidence shows that the landlord offered to send the environmental health team copies of noise recordings and other correspondence.
    6. Contacted the police following the resident’s report of an incident on Halloween involving a knife. The police told the landlord that they would not be taking any further action as it was a third-hand report which they could not pursue.
20. Within her complaint the resident said that she felt that the landlord should have done more to reduce the noise than send the resident letters. She also said that she had tried speaking and writing to the neighbour using a template provided by environmental health. The resident said that she felt that she was being deliberately harassed by her neighbour.
21. The evidence shows that there were recording keeping issues related to the resident’s reports and the noise recordings that she submitted. On one occasion, the call handler noted that they had “eventually found them” in an incorrect area of the landlord’s IT system. This meant that recordings had not been acknowledged, logged or actioned for a more extended period of time. Landlords must ensure that their systems are suitable and able to store and recall information in a timely way to assist with the management of ASB concerns and complaints.
22. Within both the landlord’s complaint responses, and its subsequent review of the case following escalation to our Service, it noted that there were significant issues with its communication with the resident. In particular, there were numerous occasions when the resident requested callbacks from the landlord, or submitted evidence or further reports of noise, which were not acknowledged or actioned. This was a failure. It caused additional, avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. It also meant that the landlord did not take timely action regarding the concerns being raised.
23. It is of particular note that the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord’s chief executive in order to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and to seek further intervention by the landlord in the ASB concerns being raised. The purpose of the landlord’s complaint process, along with its direct intervention in ASB concerns, is to address the concerns at the earliest point. Where this is not possible, this should be clearly explained to the resident, along with an ongoing action plan or mitigation.
24. Within the course of this complaint there was evidence that the landlord closed the ASB cases on two occasions. It said that this was due to no further reports being made by the resident. The evidence supports that there were periods when fewer reports were received, and the resident herself acknowledged that the neighbour’s behaviour improved for the immediate period following warning letters from the landlord. On balance, the landlord is entitled to close ASB cases where there is no ongoing concern. This does; however, need to be balanced with case specific experience and where reoccurrences are a known factors, the landlord should consider keeping a case open for extended periods. In all cases, the landlord must consider the full case history and wider context when new reports are made.
25. Another significant element of the resident’s complaint related to the landlord’s advice to contact environmental health. The resident described feeling passed between the two organisations. The correspondence seen by this Service does indicate conflicting advice from the environmental health team at times, although this is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider.
26. The landlord was correct to recommend that the resident contact environmental health and log her complaint. The environmental health teams of local authorities have statutory powers to take legal action (such as abatement notices) against perpetrators of noise nuisances. They also have access to noise recording equipment and can enforce breaches of the notices they issue in the courts. Whilst it would have been frustrating for the resident to be passed between the organisations, the advice given by the landlord was correct.
27. The landlord’s subsequent case review in July 2024 noted that the complaint process had not considered the resident’s welfare in the substantive responses. This was a significant failure given the resident had reported impacts to her mental health, the wellbeing of her daughter and the escalation of incidents, including the report of a threat involving a knife.
28. The landlord’s case review also identified a range of other failures in the landlord’s processes including its communication, learning and compensation. In terms of remedy, in cases like this, compensation of around £750 would be considered appropriate. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it was only offered after the Ombudsman’s investigation began when the landlord subsequently reviewed the case, which was a considerable period after the complaint process was exhausted.
29. This indicates that the landlord did not take the opportunity of the complaint process to properly investigate the circumstances of the complaint and make a suitable offer of redress as soon as it could. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. On this basis, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate.
30. Overall, by the landlord’s own admission in its case review in July 2024, it had failed within the complaint process to address the resident’s root concerns and missed numerous opportunities to contact the resident to progress matters and maintain effective communication. It also acknowledged that it had failed to provide sufficient redress or to identify the correct learning from the case. This shows an ineffective complaint process which can only but have caused the resident additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble until such times as the landlord undertook its subsequent review.
31. The landlord’s actions and redress within its review were more proportionate, including the apologies given and more wide-ranging learning identified and this was positive to note. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not conduct this review until the resident escalated her complaint to our Service. This meant that the resident waited over 8 months after the stage 2 complaint response was issued for these findings and the redress offered and this should have been offered at a much earlier point.
32. It is acknowledged that the resident feels that the noise nuisance continues to the time of this investigation, however the landlord’s actions in managing the noise have been largely appropriate, particularly given the constraints on the action it can take legally. The resident should continue to report her concerns to the environmental health team, who can consider taking legal action against the neighbour should a statutory noise nuisance be identified. If this were to be the case, the landlord could then also consider taking enforcement action such as sending tenancy warning letters or, ultimately, considering a notice seeking possession of the property.
33. Taking these factors together there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB because:
    1. Its poor communication contributed to the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident was experiencing. Although this was identified in the complaint responses, very limited redress was offered initially and the poor communication continued further into the process.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping practices and systems were not suitable, as noise recordings which had been logged by the resident were not filed or retrievable by the relevant team. This required the resident to prompt the landlord to look for them, meaning that they were not actioned in a timely or effective way.
    3. The learning identified during the complaint process was incorrect and this was not identified or rectified for several months after the conclusion of the complaint process.
    4. Its redress was offered 8 months after the conclusion of its complaint process, subsequent to knowledge of the pending investigation of this matter by the Ombudsman.
34. The landlord’s offer of £750 compensation is not fully proportionate and an additional award of £250 compensation has been made below, along with orders for the landlord to review the case and provide its contemporary position on action taken.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £1000 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of pursuing the ASB incidents over an extended period and compounded by the landlord’s delays in actioning her communications and noise recordings submitted, due to record keeping errors.

The landlord may deduct the £750 compensation it offered in its complaint review, if this has already been paid. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account or similar.

2. Provide the resident and this Service with its position on any ongoing reports of ASB or noise received from the resident. This should include a written statement of its current understanding of the situation, action it is taking or intends to take either individually or with partner agencies and an action plan, if appropriate.
3. Review its record keeping practices in light of the failures identified in this report and provide an action plan showing what action it will take to address this in a period not exceeding 12 weeks from the date of this determination.
4. Provide its position, in writing to the resident and this Service, on the progress and implementation of the learning it identified in its case review in July 2024. 

37. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of the complaint handling in this case to identify why it did not address the resident’s concerns and complaints satisfactorily until its subsequent case review in July 2024. It must assess:
    1. Why the review of the case was not conducted until the matter was escalated to the Ombudsman.
    2. Why the initial complaint investigation failed to identify or address all of the resident’s concerns.
    3. What action it can take to prevent a reoccurrence of this and identify how it will implement this in a period not exceeding a further 8 weeks.

Recommendation

38. The landlord should continue to support the resident with notifying the local authority’s environmental health team about any ongoing noise nuisance.