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

Platform Housing Group Limited (202322227)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322227

Platform Housing Group Limited

27 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the property, a ground-floor flat owned by the landlord. It had recorded mental health vulnerabilities for him. He no longer lives at the address.
  2. The resident reported ASB from 2 neighbours to the landlord from August 2021. He made more frequent reports throughout 2022 and 2023. The landlord completed risk assessments and action plans. It provided him with advice and asked him to take recordings and keep logs. It spoke to the neighbours and consulted with police.
  3. On 4 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the ongoing ASB from neighbours and the lack of support it had given him.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 September 2023. It said it had logged 27 cases from his reports and that it had listened to over 500 noise recordings from him. It found that these only featured everyday living noise except for dogs barking. It gave advice to his neighbours about the dog noise and use of leads in communal areas.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 13 October 2023, after he found dog faeces on his balcony. He said the noise was ongoing and he felt the landlord was not doing anything.
  6. On 6 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It listed 11 ASB cases from between 2021 and October 2023. It apologised for not fully following its procedure in 5 of these. It made recommendations for proper handling of the open case. It explained why it could not evict his neighbours and the improvements it had made to its ASB service since July 2022. It offered £400 compensation which it calculated as £50 per service failure and an added £150 for distress and impact.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint and brought his complaint to us for investigation after further reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a balanced approach in dealing with ASB by using a combination of prevention, enforcement, and support, or signposting to external agencies where necessary. This includes offering support to victims and perpetrators and selecting the most appropriate tools or powers to resolve a case.
  2. Following the landlord’s first intervention between the resident and his neighbour in August 2021 when it found no noise nuisance, he made no further reports until 6 April 2022 when he reported noise from his neighbour above. It did not try to contact him about this until 27 April 2022. It listened to his recording and found that there was noise nuisance but, from the evidence provided, it did not take any further action about this. This was not reasonable, and it may have missed an opportunity for early intervention at this stage.
  3. The resident made further reports of noise from his neighbour on 6 June 2022. As part of this report he said he had contacted environmental health, who referred him back to the landlord. It investigated this with police and regularly contacted the resident. It demonstrated good partnership working and communication with the resident.
  4. In September 2022 the landlord listened to the resident’s recordings and could not hear evidence of noise nuisance. As such, it completed a risk assessment with him on 14 October 2022 which had a low score due to less frequent issues. It told him it would contact him 10 days later to close the case if there had been no further problems. It called him as arranged and he reported further issues with 2 separate neighbours. It continued to communicate regularly with him and asked if he would be happy for it to speak to the neighbours.
  5. At this stage the resident was not making daily reports and there were periods of up to a month with no problems. As such, the landlord’s offer to take a low-level approach to enforcement was reasonable. It noted on 24 November 2022 that it would give words of advice to the neighbour when it could establish which of the 2 it was.
  6. The resident only made 1 report of noise in January 2023, but the landlord continued to monitor the case. He made a more substantial report on 14 February 2023 and it completed a risk assessment, which scored as high risk. It told him to report illegal activity to the police and noise environmental health and asked him to download the noise app to record noise evidence.
  7. On 30 March the landlord spoke to the resident and said that it had spoken with the first of the 2 neighbours and given them words of advice. Its handling of this specific complaint was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. He had very few issues with this neighbour after its intervention.
  8. In late March 2023 the resident made 3 separate reports of noise from his neighbour above. He sent over 60 recordings on the noise app. The landlord listened to all of these and noted people walking or running loudly and dogs barking and whining. However, it saw that these were within “sociable” hours, and that he had recorded most of these over 1 day. It planned to speak to his neighbour and regularly contact him with updates.
  9. As of 27 April 2023, the resident had sent the landlord over 100 noise recordings. It found no statutory noise nuisance in these, however, there were a few that included excessive banging and dogs barking. It contacted his neighbour on 11 May 2023 and gave them words of advice. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 16 May 2023 to provide an update from its visit to his neigbhour. It offered him support, which he declined, and completed an updated risk assessment which scored as medium. It followed this with a home visit to him on 18 May 2023 and recommended that he only upload noise recordings if they were excessive, like the few it had found. It gave him advice about moving home and explained that it was likely to close the case due to the lack of excessive noise.
  11. The landlord closed the noise case on 5 June 2023 and wrote to the resident to explain this. It said that the noise levels were not sufficient for it to act as they were general household noises. It signposted him to environmental health. Its decision to close the case was fair as it found no excessive noise in the most recent recordings that he sent to it and his reports had become less frequent. It also showed good practice by offering to continue to check its website for suitable new homes for him.
  12. The resident reported further noise and dog issues on 30 June 2023. The landlord completed a new risk assessment, which scored low. It spoke to his neighbour again and closed the case after this. It told the resident that he needed to understand that it is difficult for people living in flats not to make general living noise. It acted promptly on this occasion and acted in line with its policy.
  13. On 17 August 2023 the resident reported that his neighbour was banging on his door, spitting water onto his balcony, throwing a ball at his kitchen window and banging on the metal of the balcony. It put this down to children playing and told him that he would need to speak to their parents if they were causing a nuisance. It said the case would remain closed unless he could prove the behaviour was malicious towards him. This was not in line with its policy as it made no effort to investigate this report.
  14. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 September 2023 about its handling of his reports of ASB. He felt it had not provided him with adequate support. In its response of 26 September 2023, it said it had opened 27 ASB cases from his reports in 2023 alone. This included over 500 noise recordings which it had individually reviewed, and it only found noise nuisance in relation to dogs barking, about which it had given advice to his neighbour. It said it had followed its policies and procedures and had offered him advice and support, which he declined.
  15. The landlord’s complaint response was factual and outlined the high volume of reports and recordings it had received from the resident in 2023. However, it did not identify its failure to follow its policy in August 2023, which was likely the catalyst for his complaint.
  16. The resident reported to the landlord in October 2023 that his neighbour had been dropping dog faeces and spitting onto his balcony. He asked that it log this as a complaint. It did this and spoke to his neighbour on 18 October 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response it advised him that this case remained open and it booked a home visit to discuss the problems with him for 8 November 2023. This was a positive response to the ongoing issues, and it remained in line with its policy.
  17. In its stage 2 complaint response of 6 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged that there had been occasions when it had not fully followed procedure and this included its poor response on 17 August 2023, along with earlier complaints about the communal garden and an issue with another neighbour. It apologised for the occasions in which it had failed to follow its policies and procedures and provided an action plan for its future handling of his reports. It explained the changes it had made to its ASB procedures since July 2022, which included an improved case management system and management oversight of cases. It offered £400 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £50 for each of the 5 identified service failures.
    2. £150 for the distress and impact faced by the resident.
  18. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, action plan for the future and outline of changes to its ASB procedures) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  19. The landlord acted fairly by apologising and demonstrated learning from outcomes through providing the action plan and its changes to its ASB procedures.
  20. The landlord’s offer of compensation was fair in the circumstances of the case and is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  21. The resident continued to report issues with noise to the landlord after receiving its stage 2 response. It continued to visit him and communicate with both him and his neighbour. During a visit to the neighbour in January 2024, it found that the floorboards in their property were constantly creaking and making loud noise, so it arranged to repair these to alleviate the noise it was causing. The evidence provided shows that it continued to support both parties.
  22. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies for the majority of the resident’s reports. It received a high volume of reports and noise recordings from him. It offered reasonable apologies and a fair compensation amount as part of its stage 2 response for the opportunities it missed and times when it did not fully follow policy and procedure. The resident told us in March 2025 that he no longer lives at the address so there are no ongoing issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident its stage 2 compensation offer of £400 if it has not done so already.