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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202410454)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410454

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 February 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived at the property, which is a flat since 2008.
  2. Between 2019 and 2023, the resident made regular reports to the landlord of ASB from the property above his. The reports were mainly about noise nuisance throughout the day and night, such as slamming doors, DIY, and loud banging noises.
  3. The resident raised a complaint through the Service on 16 January 2024 about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It acknowledged it should have handled his reports of ASB better. It apologised for this failure. The landlord said that it would attend the resident’s property on 5 February 2024 to complete a noise test. It would then determine the next steps. The landlord offered compensation of £300 for its failures.
  4. The landlord completed a noise test in February 2024. During the period February 2024 to May 2024, it completed other actions, such as using an independent witness and interviewing the neighbour. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case on 10 June 2024. It explained it had been unable to obtain evidence to support the resident’s reports.
  5. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision to close his case in June 2024. He then asked for his complaint to be escalated on 27 September 2024. He explained that there had been no improvement and that the noise nuisance was getting worse. He explained he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue. He said the noise nuisance was affecting his health.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 October 2024. It said it believed its original response to the resident’s complaint was appropriate. It considered that it had followed its ASB process until it closed the resident’s case in June 2024. It explained that it had opened a new ASB case following a new report from the resident in October 2024.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling and requested that the Ombudsman investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. The resident advised the Service that he had experienced further issues with ASB in July and October 2024. In addition, he said the landlord had not inspected or repaired his bathroom ceiling.
  3. The issue with the bathroom ceiling was not part of the resident’s original complaint. It needs to be raised as a new complaint with the landlord before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate it.
  4. The landlord has explained it opened a new ASB case for the resident in response to his reports in October 2024. If he is dissatisfied with its handling of his latest reports, he is entitled to make a new complaint to the landlord and then return to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied. In accordance with paragraph 42.a, these new issues or further ASB reports will not be considered in this investigation.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take a reasonable approach to all reports of suspected ASB and will intervene only where it is in the best interests of its residents to do so. It explains that not all reports of ASB actually turn out to be ASB. For example, its policy does not define noise from children playing, family disputes, or sounds from day to day living, such as opening and closing doors as ASB. Its policy also explains that it will agree an action plan with the person reporting the ASB, which could include actions such as contacting the alleged perpetrator.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will close an ASB case where it has taken all reasonable action to resolve the matter, where there is no evidence to support the allegations, or when the reports are not deemed as ASB. It will inform all relevant parties when closing a case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord in its stage 1 response stated that it would carry out a physical noise test between the resident’s and his neighbour’s property on 5 February 2024. Following this, it would determine the next steps.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord completed a noise test at the resident’s and his neighbour’s property on 5 February 2024. This test showed that the neighbour closing doors could be heard in the resident’s property. However, other sounds, such as furniture being moved could not be heard. The landlord found that the neighbour’s property was carpeted throughout except for the bathroom and kitchen. The neighbour disputed the resident’s allegations of ASB when interviewed by the landlord.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident with the outcome of the noise test on 7 February 2024. It explained that it had requested door closers for the neighbour’s front door and 1 internal door. In addition, it explained that it had arranged for a professional witness to try to record incidents of ASB. Professional witnesses are trained individuals or teams who discreetly monitor and document instances of ASB.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to review the ASB case from February 2024 to May 2024. During this period, it provided updates to the resident. It also made the neighbour aware of further reports of noise nuisance. In addition, it noted that the professional witness had recorded no incidents of ASB after 6 separate visits to the property throughout March 2024. The landlord requested that the resident use its noise app to capture incidents of noise nuisance. However, the resident declined to do so, as he did not consider it was his responsibility.
  6. The landlord informed the resident on 10 June 2024 that it was closing his ASB case. It explained that the neighbour had disputed his allegations and made counter allegations that he was banging on the ceiling. It said that the professional witness had completed 6 visits that were all negative and it had received no further reports from other residents. The landlord explained that it had fully investigated the resident’s reports and was closing the case as there was no evidence to support his reports. The landlord’s decision to close the resident’s ASB case was in line with its ASB policy, and the evidence it had received and obtained.
  7. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision to close his ASB case on 10 June 2024. The landlord responded on 12 June 2024 explaining in further detail the steps it had taken to investigate his reports and the lack of evidence supporting them. The resident said on 16 June 2024 that if he encounters further issue, he would consider escalating his complaint.
  8. The landlord’s decision to close the ASB case was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, in its original decision letter, its follow up on 12 June 2024, and in its final complaint response it included an allegation that the resident had harassed the previous tenant of the flat above. The resident replied to dispute the allegation and explained his distress and dissatisfaction that the landlord had made it.
  9. The allegation does not appear to have any bearing on the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case, or on the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports. It is unclear, therefore, why it was included in the manner it was. This clearly caused the resident upset. If the landlord had concerns about his behaviour, it would have been appropriate to have addressed this with him at the time this allegation was made. This was a failing in the landlord’s otherwise reasonable handling of the ASB reports.
  10. The resident requested his complaint escalated on 27 September 2024. He explained that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this issue. He also explained that noise from his neighbour was impacting another tenant. The landlord in its stage 2 response in October 2024 explained why it had closed his ASB case. It said that when it closed his ASB case, it had not received any reports from other tenants about his neighbour.
  11. The resident has challenged the landlord’s explanation that it had not received reports from other tenants because he was aware others had done so. The evidence supports his view. It shows that another tenant had confirmed the residents reports of noise nuisance during a site visit on 5 February 2024 and made report themselves in March and April. The landlord had responded to the information it received from the other tenant. However, in its case closure letter to the resident the landlord explained it had not received “further reports from other residents.” It included a copy of the letter in its final complaint response. Accordingly, it is clear the landlord was not saying it had not received any reports from other tenants at all, only that there had been no further reports when it closed the case The landlord’s explanation, was correct.
  12. The landlord agreed to install door closers at the neighbour’s property in February 2024. It has told the Service it has not yet done so. But has now arranged for its repairs team to attend the neighbour’s property to assess it for the closers. That is appropriate, but its failure to take the action it had promised to take was a failing, especially as it had identified the closers could reduce the level of noise nuisance the resident was experiencing.
  13. Overall, since February 2024, the landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy. It investigated the resident’s reports and raised this with the neighbour. It made reasonable attempts to obtain evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB. As the landlord was unable to obtain evidence, it decided to close the case. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  14. However, the landlord inappropriately referred to counter-allegations about the resident, and it did not install door closers as agreed. These failings were not identified in the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s complaint about its handling, meaning its complaint response did not put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £550. This is comprised of:
    1. £300 already offered in its stage 1 response.
    2. £250 for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must confirm it has inspected and installed the door closers in the neighbouring property as it said it would. If it has decided on a different course of action, it must explain why and how it reached that decision.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.