Cotman Housing Association Limited (202405270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405270

Cotman Housing Association Limited

24 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request for a transfer.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat and he has lived there since February 2024.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 May 2024 as he said he had reported ASB to the landlord and received no response. On 2 July he called the landlord and said he wanted to raise a complaint about the progression of his ASB case. We contacted the landlord on 19 July and asked it to raise a complaint about its handling of his reports to ASB and his request for a management transfer.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 August 2024, in which it said:
1. it had asked the resident to download a noise app and use this to record evidence of the reported noise nuisance
2. it was willing to raise an ASB case to reflect any new information he wanted to provide
3. if he wanted to transfer properties it could provide support with this process
It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 September 2024, in which it said:
1. its actions were in line with its ASB policy – the evidence collected did not substantiate claims of targeted ASB or prove deliberate malice from neighbours
2. it offered support in exploring options for a transfer
3. it visited his home on 23 August to discuss an ASB complaint raised against him, which was standard procedure
4. it noted his intention to report matters to the police and said it would cooperate fully with any investigation
On 8 October 2024 the resident asked us to investigate the complaint. He said the landlord had failed to take any action. On 4 March 2025 he said matters had escalated. He also said there was an issue with damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

On 4 March 2025 the resident told us that he had experienced further incidents of ASB. As these incidents occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate these. This investigation will focus on the events leading up to the landlord’s final response of 4 September 2024. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of more recent events, he should raise this directly with the landlord to allow it to investigate.
The resident told us about damp and mould in the property on 4 March 2025. This issue was not raised as part of the complaint, so the landlord has also not had the opportunity to investigate this issue. If the resident remains unhappy with this, he should raise this directly with the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns about his health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will:
1. use preventative and early intervention measures where appropriate to do so
2. take a victim centred approach by making it easy to report ASB, by keeping victims informed about the status of their case and making it clear where the responsibility lies within the organisation
3. encourage customers and complainants of ASB to resolve their own matters with their neighbours where it is safe and appropriate in the circumstances to do so
4. record and monitor incidents of ASB
5. complete risk assessments to determine the level of harm the ASB causes to individuals when an initial report is received
6. complete a written action plan with all complainants of ASB, outlining the actions they should take and the actions the landlord intends to take
7. work in partnership with other agencies such as the Police and local council to prevent and tackle ASB
8. take reasonable, proportionate and decisive action to deal with complaints of ASB with the aim of resolving cases in a timely manner and with the aim of avoiding escalation
9. utilise the full toolkit of methods, legal and non-legal, available to address the issues
We have not seen a copy of the resident’s initial report of ASB. On 14 March 2024 the landlord emailed him asking what flat number he was having an issue with, and asked if he wanted it to discuss noise with the neighbour. This was a reasonable step for it to take at that time. He responded on 30 April saying that his upstairs neighbour was stomping around.
On 3 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that the ‘harassment’ from upstairs had increased. He said there had been noise until 1:30am on Friday morning, which had restarted at 6:30am. He said the issue was affecting his health. He said he had contacted the Police and had an appointment the next day. We have seen no evidence that he updated the landlord as to whether this meeting went ahead, and if so what the outcome was. The landlord responded the same day, asking him to monitor the noise over the weekend and to report back to it the following Tuesday. It asked him not to approach the neighbour.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 May 2024 and said there had been aggressive, persistent noise harassment from the neighbour over the weekend. The landlord responded on 17 May 2024 inviting him to register for its ASB app in order to upload evidence, which was a reasonable action. However, it did not offer to carry out a risk assessment at this time, or set out an action plan. which its policy says it should have done. This could have helped the landlord set clear expectations to the resident of what it was and was not able to do to deal with the issue. The resident contacted us on 18 May saying he was unhappy the landlord had not responded to his ASB reports.
The resident continued to report ASB several more times during May 2024. On 29 May the landlord wrote to him to acknowledge his reports of noise nuisance and ASB. It said it had visited him at his home and had arranged for him to contact the local council to establish whether there was a statutory noise nuisance. It explained why he needed to use the app to record the noise and also said the local council may be able to provide calibrated sound recording equipment. It also said it was working with building surveyors who would attend on 31 May to see if there was anything structurally wrong. It also explained what would be considered domestic noise and not ASB. These actions were reasonable for the landlord to take at that time and in line with its ASB policy.
On 4 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking why he was not receiving support. The landlord responded the same day reminding him of the support it had offered. It again asked him to use the app to log any noise incidents. On 6 June the landlord told the resident that the local council’s Environmental Health team should be installing sound recording equipment soon. It said it could carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan if the resident wanted. It also said it could offer mediation. It told him he should report anything he felt was criminal to the Police. These actions were reasonable by the landlord, but as explained above, the risk assessment should have been offered sooner.
The Police contacted the landlord on 17 June 2024 saying it had received an increasing number of reports of ASB from both the resident and the neighbour about each other. They said the neighbour had told them the floor/ceiling had been found not to be ‘good enough’. On 18 June the landlord emailed the resident to say that following a joint visit with the Police and a surveyor on 18 June, the upstairs flat required some remedial work. It said that during the work the sound recording equipment would be removed to avoid building noise being recorded, which was reasonable.
Internal records of the landlord from 3 July 2024 say that it had reviewed noise recordings, including those that the resident had provided, but found these were just usual domestic noise. It noted that the building structure may not have been helping with the noise. It said that once the building work was completed to the neighbour’s flat, sound recording equipment would be installed. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out remedial work to the upstairs flat to try to reduce noise transference.
On 19 July 2024 we contacted the landlord and asked it to raise a complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s internal records of 1 August 2024 say it had been dealing with other cases in the block of ground floor residents complaining about noise from upstairs neighbours. It said borderline statutory nuisance had been identified, but after ‘good’ carpets and underlay were installed in the upstairs flats, including that of the resident’s neighbour, the noise subsided.
In its stage 1 response of 5 August 2024 the landlord said it had provided the resident with an app to provide evidence and referred him to the Environmental Health team at the local council. It said it had explained why the recordings needed to be taken via the app or calibrated noise equipment. It said he had recently mentioned ‘daily abuse from local children’ and offered to open a separate ASB case if he was able to provide more information. This was reasonable, as it would require specific details in order to carry out an investigation.
The landlord said it had been working closely with him to resolve the issues. It said it could provide support should he wish to transfer to another property.
In its stage 2 response of 4 September 2024 the landlord said it agreed with its stage 1 response and said it had taken actions in line with its ASB policy. It said the evidence collected did not substantiate claims of targeted ASB, or prove any deliberate malice from the neighbour. It said that it had visited his home on 23 August to discuss an ASB complaint raised against him. It explained that it was standard procedure for it to investigate all ASB allegations. It noted that he had told it he intended to report matters to the police and said it would cooperate fully with any investigation.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord did offer the resident a range of support, including a risk assessment, mediation and methods of submitting suitable noise recordings. While it had explained how he could submit suitable recordings, it did also review some of the recordings he provided that he had recorded via other methods. It worked in partnership with the Environmental Health team at the local council and confirmed it would cooperate with the Police if an investigation took place.
The landlord’s later actions demonstrated that it took positive steps, in line with its ASB policy. However, it missed opportunities early on to carry out a risk assessment and put together an action plan based on this. This could have allowed it to clearly set expectations for the resident and may have prevented the situation from escalating. This lack of action left the resident without a clear understanding of the steps the landlord would take.
An order had been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out a risk assessment or create an action plan at the appropriate time. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind.

The resident’s request for a transfer

The landlord’s management transfer policy says that management transfers are for urgent circumstances which are not adequately reflected within local councils’ allocations processes or its own transfer policy. A management transfer should only be considered where the problem cannot be resolved by normal housing management actions under the tenancy conditions.
When the resident approached us on 18 May 2024 he said that he wanted to be moved to a property that was suitable for his disabled son’s needs. It is not clear from the information provided from both parties whether he had already raised a request for this to the landlord. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord was made aware of his desire for a transfer before we contacted it about the complaint on 19 July.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 23 July 2024 to discuss the complaint in more detail. The resident declined to speak over the phone and asked the landlord to respond in writing. On 26 July the resident emailed the landlord and said that he did not want a management move as he did not believe this would take his son’s medical conditions into consideration.
In both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord told the resident he could speak to it for support in looking into his transfer options. The landlord also said that during a face to face visit he was advised to register for local lettings. No evidence has been provided that the resident contacted the landlord to ask for further support in registering on local housing registers.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. No evidence has been provided that the resident asked the landlord for a management transfer, and when the landlord offered to look into this option, he declined this. The landlord also offered support to the resident in looking at other transfer options. The support offered by the landlord was reasonable and we have seen no evidence that the resident has taken the landlord up on this offer.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days from receipt. It can extend this by a further 10 working days, but must update the resident. At stage 2, the landlord will again acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and will respond within 20 working days from the escalation request. It can extend this by a further 20 working days, but again must update the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2024 asking to raise a complaint, as he was unhappy with the progression of the ASB case. The landlord did not acknowledge this request and there is no evidence it raised a complaint at this time, which was not appropriate. We contacted the landlord on 19 July and asked it to raise a complaint for the resident.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 23 July 2024 to discuss the complaint but he told it that he wanted everything in writing. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 August, more than a month after the resident initially raised the complaint. This was outside its policy timescale and represented an unreasonable delay.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. However, as the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 September 2024, only 22 working days after it sent its stage 1, it is likely it responded within its policy timescale at this stage.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made a clear request to raise a complaint on 2 July 2024, and the landlord overlooked this. It did not raise a complaint until this Service intervened, which was inappropriate. This led to a delay in it responding at stage 1.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in responding to his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of ASB
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer
3. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £150, broken down as follows:
1. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £50 to recognise its complaint handling failure.
The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord to contact the resident to understand the current situation regarding ASB, if it has not already done so. It should consider completing a risk assessment and action plan if the resident reports ongoing ASB.