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

Bolsover District Council (202326157)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326157

Bolsover District Council

16 May 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 noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since May 2001. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported incidents of noise from his neighbour during February and March 2023. The landlord visited the resident and spoke with the neighbour. The landlord also provided the resident with diary sheets.
  3. On 23 March 2023 the resident said he was struggling to complete the diary sheets. The landlord arranged support to help him complete them. The resident continued to report noise during April and May 2023. On 17 May 2023, the landlord asked environmental health to provide noise monitoring equipment.
  4. Environmental health told the landlord on 27 June 2023 that the noise monitoring equipment had not picked up any noise. Following further reports of noise, the landlord asked environmental health on 20 September 2023 to install the noise monitoring equipment again.
  5. The resident complained on 26 September 2023 about the length of time he had been reporting noise. He said the landlord was doing nothing about it.
  6. In its complaint response on 9 October 2023 the landlord said it had investigated each report but as there was no evidence of significant noise, it could not take enforcement action. It said it was going to install noise monitoring equipment again and if it found anything significant, it might be able to act.
  7. The landlord’s records say environmental health tried to install noise monitoring equipment on 11 October 2023. They say the resident did not want it installed as he said he would not be able to use it because of his health issues.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 October 2023 as he was unhappy with the response. In its final response on 26 October 2023, the landlord said there was no evidence of noise nuisance. It said it could only act when noise was excessive, and without evidence there was “very little else” it could do.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said his health was getting worse because of a lack of sleep due to the noise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen the resident reported noise from his neighbour in 2021 and 2022. These noise reports are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate matters the resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that antisocial behaviour (ASB) cases involving allegations, sometimes with little or no corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. The Ombudsman will decide whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably. For example, when the landlord received a report, did it respond promptly, did it offer support to the resident, and did it work with other agencies.
  2. The landlord has a clear responsibility to deal with reports of ASB in line with legislation and its policy. In line with the Crime and Policing Act 2014, the landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as actions that cause, or are likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take all reasonable steps to ensure residents meet their obligations under the terms of their tenancy. It says it will respond to residents who report ASB within 10 working days. It will investigate reports thoroughly and take timely and effective action if needed. It says it will update residents and work with other agencies to provide support.
  4. The ASB policy says some behaviour reported might not be ASB and might be day–to–day activities. It says it will consider how to deal with these reports to try to find a positive outcome. It says the type of issues which might not be ASB include domestic noises, domestic activities such as vacuuming or using a washing machine, people gathering socially, and DIY.
  5. Records provided by the landlord show the resident reported noise from his neighbour on 2 February 2023. The landlord’s ranger service visited the resident the same day and told him it would provide him with diary sheets. It also tried to speak with the neighbour. The landlord responded to 3 more noise reports in February 2023 and several reports in March 2023. During this time the landlord regularly visited the resident, provided him with diary sheets, gave information about mental health support, and spoke with his neighbour. When the resident said on 22 March 2023 that he could not fill in the diary sheets because of his health conditions, the landlord arranged support to help him complete them.
  6. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s response at this time was reasonable and proportionate. This is because it responded quickly to the resident’s reports, offered support, spoke with the neighbour, and tried to gather evidence.
  7. On 17 May 2023 the landlord sent diary sheets to environmental health and asked it to install noise monitoring equipment. It sent a letter to the neighbour telling him it would be monitoring noise. Records show there was a limited number of diary sheets at this time and the landlord’s officers had not heard excessive noise during their visits.
  8. It is the Ombudsman’s view that because of the continued reports from the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to involve environmental health at this time. It could have asked environmental health to install the equipment sooner, but communications from environmental health say they normally need 3 weeks of completed diary sheets before they install equipment.
  9. On 26 June 2023 environmental health told the landlord the equipment had not recorded any noise nuisance during the 7 days it was at the property from 13 June 2023. It said it had told the resident there was no noise and had recommended that he go back to the landlord if noise became an issue again. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord communicated directly with the resident about this. However, the resident was aware that he should report further noise nuisance to the landlord.
  10. The resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour on 29 August 2023. The landlord’s records show it told the resident it had investigated before and found no noise nuisance. It said it needed evidence from him to act and would ask the rangers to speak with the neighbour. The rangers visited the neighbour on 30 August 2023, but he was not at home.
  11. Following further reports of noise, the landlord contacted environmental health on 20 September 2023 and asked it to install the noise monitoring equipment again. The landlord wrote to the neighbour the same day about the reported noise.
  12. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord again acted reasonably. This is because it explained to the resident that it needed evidence, contacted the neighbour about noise, and, in the absence of other evidence, asked environmental health to install equipment a second time.
  13. The resident complained about a lack of action to stop the noise on 26 September 2023. In its complaint response on 9 October 2023, the landlord said it had responded to his reports but there was no evidence of noise. It said it was now waiting for environmental health to install the noise monitoring equipment for the second time.
  14. Environmental health told the landlord on 11 October 2023 that it had visited the resident, but he did not want the noise recording equipment installing. Environmental health said the resident told them he would find it difficult to get to the machine because of his health and restricted mobility. Environmental health said it explained there was a fob on a lanyard that he could wear around his neck, and he would just need to press a button to start recording. The resident told them he would still struggle with this.
  15. The Ombudsman has seen that environmental health asked the landlord on 11 October 2023 whether it had considered mediation between the neighbours. The landlord responded and said it did not think it was appropriate at this point. The Ombudsman has not seen an explanation for this decision. However, it would expect the landlord to consider a range of options when dealing with disputes about neighbour noise.
  16. In its final response on 26 October 2023 the landlord said it made an offer on 19 October 2023 to visit the resident’s home to witness noise. It said the resident refused the offer because the neighbour would see the landlord’s vehicle. The landlord said it suggested parking on another street, but the resident did not accept this. The landlord said it could only act when noise was excessive, and it needed evidence, but the resident had not provided this. It also said the first noise recording did not provide evidence and its officers had not witnessed anything more than general living noises. It said it had given the resident rehousing advice related to his health, but the resident did not want to move. It said he should contact it if he changed his mind.
  17. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because it responded quickly to the resident’s reports, offered support to gather evidence, contacted the neighbour, and involved environmental health.
  18. Records show there was a lack of evidence of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord cannot take tenancy action against another resident without strong evidence. The landlord encouraged the resident to provide evidence and took steps to gather it. Despite this, there was no evidence of noise nuisance. This meant there was little action the landlord could take. The landlord could have considered mediation, but it decided this was not appropriate. Because of the actions the landlord took, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord on its handling of reports of noise nuisance.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord on its handling of reports of noise nuisance.