Flagship Housing Group Limited (202214550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214550

Flagship Housing Group Limited

4 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:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Request to reopen a previous complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupied the property, a 1–bedroom flat, on an assured tenancy. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 29 September 2022 the resident reported eggs had been thrown at his window and that his neighbour had been noisy. He said he wanted them evicted. He explained that, while he had not witnessed the egg being thrown, he believed it could have only been the neighbour that did it. He also said they had left bags in the living area.
4. During October and November 2022 the resident told the landlord he wanted a complaint he had previously made about ASB, which had been closed in April 2021, to be reopened. He said he had only agreed for it to be suspended. The landlord asked for evidence of him having been told that, but there is no indication this was provided. The landlord explained that, as the complaint was closed and he was now reporting new issues, it would need to be recorded as a new complaint.
5. There was then some discussion around whether the resident wanted a new complaint recorded. The landlord said it could not take action against the neighbour without proof they were involved in ASB. However, as the resident made it clear he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports, it logged a new complaint on 17 November 2022.
6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 November 2022 it did not uphold the complaint and said:
   1. The resident had not witnessed the neighbour throwing the egg, but he could report it to the police if he wished.
   2. If he was experiencing noise he could use the Noise App. It was for the council to provide a noise device but the noise he had reported was just household living noise.
   3. Someone would attend on 23 November 2022 to consider whether there was an acoustic issue at the property and to talk to others that he said also had ASB issues.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 December 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 January 2023. It did not alter its stage 1 position, but added that:
   1. It had not reopened a previous ASB complaint that was closed in April 2021 as it had been 19 months between complaints and we had asked it to investigate the complaint. Therefore, a new complaint was recorded.
   2. It was important evidence was sent via the Noise App but it noted the resident had not set up an account. It offered to show him how to do that and use it.
   3. It had not referred the noise complaint to the council as it did not meet the criteria for noise nuisance as it was daily living noise. However, it was arranging an acoustic test.
   4. It had carried out a wider survey on 23 November 2022 but no other residents reported noise issues.
8. Between January and March 2023, the resident said he had concerns over the company attending to do the acoustic test, and he asked for their contact details. The landlord provided these and the resident indicated he was going to contact them directly.
9. The resident continued to reiterate he had issues with his neighbour but claimed the landlord was “playing games”. He said he would not engage in mediation and would only have testing equipment from the council if installed for a month. The landlord closed the case down on 30 March 2024 as a result of the resident not engaging with it.
10. The resident moved out of the property in April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

11. When dealing with reports of ASB and neighbour disputes, a landlord should generally begin with informal dispute resolution in an effort to investigate and determine whether ASB is taking place and, if so, attempt to resolve the matter. For example, providing support and mediation.
12. The resident has explained that he feels the landlord: did not do enough to protect him; should have reported the matter to the police; and should have taken the neighbour to court. As a result of it not doing that, he is seeking compensation.
13. It is important to explain that it is not for us to determine whether the issues reported by the resident amounted to ASB. Instead, we consider whether the landlord complied with its obligations in addressing those reports.
14. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement states that people should keep communal spaces free from belongings and rubbish. In addition, it says excessive noise could be deemed ASB as it could amount to harassment of others.
15. Having been contacted by the resident, the landlord acknowledged his reports straight away and took them seriously. It explained it could not take action against the neighbour in relation to the egg being thrown, without evidence they did it. It pointed out that the window was exposed, so it could have been thrown by someone else. While the resident disagreed with the landlord’s view, the landlord’s position was not unreasonable. It could not take action against the neighbour without evidence to substantiate the allegations. The need to collate proof of ASB, and who was doing it, was reiterated to the resident on a number of occasions.
16. In terms of items being left in communal areas, the landlord told the resident on 11 November 2022 that if any items were left, it would send the neighbourhood team to investigate. This was in line with the terms of the Tenancy Agreement. It was therefore open to the resident to report any further issues, and the landlord could then investigate further. No evidence has been provided to show whether the resident followed up on this.
17. The resident reported that the neighbour went to the toilet and into the kitchen at night, and the noise/stomping kept him awake. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will not intervene when noises relates to normal household activities, which it deemed this to be. Therefore, it was entitled to say that the reported noise did not meet the criteria for a noise nuisance. It was therefore reasonable that it took no further action at that time.
18. The ASB policy says the landlord will provide clear advice and manage expectations, and it did so in this case. It explained that, while the reports did not meet the criteria of a noise nuisance, if they persisted, evidence should be collated and it offered assistance with doing so. It explained that it was not responsible for installing noise recording devices, but to convince the council to do that, evidence would need to be submitted, to show there was a potential problem. That was why it was important for the resident to use the Noise App as suggested.
19. The landlord also issued diary sheets which were completed from October 2022. In addition, it offered to have an acoustic test done as it had explored whether it was a wider issue, by meeting with other residents who reported no ASB or noise issues. Therefore, it wanted to investigate the acoustics in the property specifically.
20. This was a sensible approach, as the issue appeared to be isolated to the property. The resident confirmed on 9 December 2022 that the acoustic company had contacted him and the landlord asked on 12 December 2022 whether he had heard anymore. As he had not, it followed this up and, on 25 January 2023, it notified the resident the acoustic test should be done in the next couple of weeks and asked for his availability. However, the resident then said he did not trust the acoustic company and he wanted its details, so he could contact it himself. The landlord provided that information, but the resident accused it of “playing games”. He then refused an offer of mediation and said he only wanted testing equipment from the council.
21. It is clear the resident has very strong feelings about what happened, but the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It could not consider taking action against the neighbour, including eviction proceedings, without having collated a substantial amount of evidence to support its position first. It offered to liaise with other agencies once it had the evidence needed and the resident was advised to report any concerns to the police also.
22. Overall, the landlord offered the resident mediation, issued diary sheets, visited other residents to investigate the issue, offered an acoustic test and training on using the Noise App. It explained the importance of collating evidence, so it ensured the resident’s expectations were properly managed. Therefore, it complied with its obligations.
23. The landlord closed the case in March 2023 as it took the view the resident was not engaging with it. By this point, the correspondence between the parties shows the resident did not accept the landlord’s position. Something he reiterated when we spoke with him about his complaint. The ASB policy states that cases will be closed if parties do not engage with evidence requirements. That is the case here, so there was no maladministration on the landlord’s part.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reopen a previous complaint

24. The resident complained to the landlord about ASB in the past and it issued a stage 2 response in April 2021. The issues complained of do not form part of this investigation, as they were not referred to us at that time. However, the resident says the landlord told him in 2021 that the complaint would be suspended, rather than closed. When he had further ASB issues in September 2022, he therefore asked the landlord to reopen his previous complaint.
25. The landlord asked for evidence of the resident having been told the complaint had been suspended, but we have not seen that anything was provided in response. Irrespective of whether the resident was told that in 2021, he was reporting new issues in September 2022 which then led him to complain to the landlord about how it was addressing them. In accordance with the complaints policy in place at the time, as the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB, it was entirely appropriate that it recorded this as a new complaint.
26. While it is noted the resident was unhappy that the original complaint was not reopened, there was no disadvantage to him. The previous complaint was out of time for us to consider, so by the landlord recording and investigating his concerns as a new complaint, it meant it was taking his complaint seriously. It also gave him the opportunity to escalate it to us, if he remained unhappy after the landlord completed its investigation.
27. Overall, the landlord explained its position to the resident from the outset, so his expectations were properly managed, and it adhered to its complaints policy. Therefore, there was no maladministration.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Request to reopen a previous complaint.