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

Luton Borough Council (202420326)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420326

Luton Borough Council

23 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:
    1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom low-rise flat. The landlord is a local authority and has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has told this Service and the landlord of health issues including issues with his memory.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident made reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in 2023 and involved his MP for assistance. In December 2023 the landlord told the MP about the previous reports of ASB and explained that it was important for the resident to collect evidence for it to take further action. Between January and December 2024 the resident made regular reports of ASB which included submitting recordings via the Noise app to the landlord.
  3. On 11 October 2024, via this Service, the resident raised his complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 October 2024. It said the noise nuisance issue was undergoing investigation by both its Noise and ASB Teams. It said:
    1. The alleged perpetrator (the neighbour) was served a noise abatement notice on 18 September 2024. It understood there were further reports of noise issues since the notice and it would take tenancy action by way of issuing a notice of seeking possession.
    2. It acknowledged there were no dates for resolution and asked the resident to continue to submit recordings to support the case.
    3. It had previously discussed sourcing alternative accommodation for the resident and said it could be explored further if the resident wanted.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 November 2024 and told the landlord that he had been suffering for 2 years due to the ASB. He said the situation was causing him stress and had impacted his memory due to lack of sleep. He said the noise was “unbearable” and the landlord had done nothing about the neighbour.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 January 2025. It apologised for the time taken to respond and said:
    1. Concerns were initially raised in April 2023 and the resident had submitted noise recordings from January 2024. It issued an abatement notice in September 2024 and the notice was breached soon after.
    2. It repeated its stage 1 response and said it had a duty of care towards the neighbour and could not act outside of legal routes.
    3. It would continue to work on the matter as possessions proceedings would require substantial evidence. It acknowledged the noise recordings provided and said a matron device would improve its ability to enforce. It noted the device was previously refused and explained that its ability to collate the evidence required was limited without it.
    4. It found its processes and law were followed in relation to ASB and apologised if the resident felt he was being treated as a perpetrator. It explained how its investigation found no evidence to show this.
    5. It repeated its offer for a supportive move and explained how support was available for the costs relating to a move.
    6. It apologised that its stage 2 response timeframe was missed.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and its lack of resolution of the ASB issues. He has said he wants the landlord to resolve the ASB issues and provide substantial compensation to resolve his complaint. The resident has said the ASB issue remains ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he reported ASB from his neighbour over a number of years. It is not disputed that the resident made reports of ASB in 2023. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised the issue as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. The resident raised his complaint on 11 October 2024, as such issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time, those from before October 2023, have not been assessed within this report.
  2. Over the course of the resident’s complaint, and in communication with the landlord and Ombudsman, he has described how the ASB impacted his memory and health. In particular, the resident has said how his memory has been impacted by lack of sleep and stress due to repeated noise nuisance from the neighbour. It is important to explain that it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  3. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident in light of his personal circumstances. 

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. The tenancy agreement says that tenants living in low-rise accommodation should have extra consideration for neighbours. It says tenants must not do anything likely to cause nuisance to others including making loud noise, music, arguing and shouting, amongst other things.
  2. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 explains that for an issue to count as statutory nuisance it must unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home. It sets out details of legal penalties if abatement notices are not complied with.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says it puts victims at the heart of its response. It says it aims to develop and support measures to prevent ASB and act quickly to prevent further incidents. Its policy lists serious and persistent noise nuisance as an example of ASB. The policy says the landlord:
    1. Has powers to deal with excessive noise and if a statutory noise nuisance has been proven it would be able to take legal action to stop the noise.
    2. Will keep victims informed of the progress of investigations and agree frequency of contact when agreeing an action plan to manage the case.
    3. Early intervention methods include, amongst other things, verbal warnings, written warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    4. Will consider legal action where intervention does not have a positive impact. But explains the action it takes will depend on a number of things including the vulnerability of the perpetrator. It adds that in such situations it would complete an equality assessment before taking legal action.
    5. Will close an ASB case when, amongst other things, the ASB ceased, partner agencies lead an intervention and there is a lack of evidence preventing further action.
  4. In November 2023 the resident’s MP, on his behalf, contacted the landlord about noise disturbances from the neighbour. At that time the landlord was aware the resident was keeping diary notes of ASB. The landlord’s internal email from November 2023 show it was considering the actions available to it. It noted that it could serve abatement notice but may fall in respects of enforcement due to vulnerabilities of the neighbour, it added that “some noise simply cannot be abated”. While it was reasonable for landlord’s to consider the approach to adopt, it was not appropriate for it to have decided to take no action when it had not investigated the matter at that time. This was not in line with its wider obligations.
  5. In December 2023, the landlord told the resident to collect evidence on the Noise app. The landlord accepts that between 7 January and 8 October 2024 it received 115 noise recordings from the resident. These reports included loud music, talking, swearing, shouting, partying, and singing. The evidence shows the resident’s reports included disturbances throughout the night and demonstrate a regular pattern of noise disturbances.
  6. However, despite the resident’s repeated contact and providing the landlord with recordings, it took the landlord until 3 April 2024 to tell the resident that it would investigate his concerns. It then took until 23 April 2024 for it to visit the neighbour. This timeframe of around 4 months to investigate the resident’s reports, was not appropriate and does not demonstrate the landlord acted quickly.
  7. Following the landlord’s contact with the neighbour, the resident continued to provide it with recordings and reports of further incidents. It took the landlord until 17 September 2024 to tell the resident that it found the noise amounted to statutory nuisance. This timeframe of over 9 months to confirm the noise amounted to statutory nuisance was not appropriate.
  8. While the landlord, in its capacity as local authority, served an abatement notice on 18 September 2024. It took no further action after it was made aware the abatement notice had been breached, this was despite it receiving a further 20 reports and recordings by 27 October 2024. While it is the role of the local authority to issue abatement notices, the landlord would have been aware of its breach and its failure to consider the options available to it as per its wider obligations or ASB policy was not appropriate.
  9. Following this, in October 2024 the landlord decided to take tenancy action against the neighbour. It is unclear why it did not take this action sooner or explain its approach to the resident. On 15 October 2024 the landlord issued a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) and despite being aware that the ASB continued, there is no evidence to show it took any further meaningful action. The timeframe of around 10 months (from January 2024) to consider tenancy action was not appropriate.
  10. There is no evidence to show the landlord agreed an action plan following the reports of ASB or told the resident of its planned approach to manage the case. It did not tell the resident why it was not continuing with legal action following the breach of abatement notice or of its changed approach to take tenancy action. This was not appropriate. 
  11. In November 2024 the landlord decided it should install a matron device (noise recording equipment). It is unclear why the landlord took as long as it did to suggest this, especially with what it knew about the case. However, there is no evidence to show it took further action after the resident declined the installation of the matron device. There is also no evidence to show the landlord considered whether it was proportionate to take no further action at that time, especially as it received 27 further reports of ASB, after the NOSP. The landlord’s actions here were not in line with its policy and were not appropriate.
  12. It is accepted that the landlord may have found the situation difficult to manage in light of the vulnerabilities of the neighbour. It is acknowledged that in May 2024 the landlord suggested alternative accommodation to the resident, while this was reasonable, it is unclear why it took as long as it did to offer this. It is noted that the landlord repeated its offer to move the resident and offered to cover removal costs (in November 2024). This was also reasonable in the circumstances, however, it missed opportunities to do this sooner and to help alleviate the resident’s concerns about similar experiences at another property.
  13. Throughout his contact with the landlord, from January 2024 onwards, the resident regularly said he could not sleep at night, the situation was “more than any human being is supposed to be enduring”, he could not “take anymore”, he pleaded for its help and described the situation as “living hell”. While the landlord’s internal emails show it considered the residents wellbeing in September 2024, there is no evidence to show it conducted a risk assessment, offered support or signposted the resident. The landlord’s approach does not demonstrate a victim-centred approach or show that it put the resident at the heart of its response. It is accepted that the situation had a significant impact on the resident and the landlord’s failure to act in line with its ASB policy added to his feeling that it would do nothing, breaking down the landlord and tenant relationship further.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was not appropriate. Over a significant period of time the landlord repeatedly failed to follow the processes it set within its ASB policy, it failed to agree an action plan, keep the resident updated, explain its approach and meet its wider obligations. The landlord took too long to take the action it did, however it is acknowledged that it did eventually offer the resident alternative accommodation.
  15. The resident has told this Service that the ASB issues remain the same. When considering the landlord’s repeated failings over a prolonged time, and the significant impact this would have had on the resident in this case, the landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.
  16. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it missed opportunities to identify what went wrong, show it adopted a proportionate approach to handling the matter, it failed to attempt to put things right or demonstrate learning. Instead it told the resident its process and law were followed in its handling of the ASB. When considering this and the landlord’s failings, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to make an award for financial compensation.
  17. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation policy and the impact the failings would have had on the resident for a prolonged period of time. While the evidence shows the landlord would have been aware of the resident’s reports of ASB around October 2023, it is fair in the circumstances to start the timeframe for compensation from January 2024 when Noise app recordings were provided to it up to when it issued its stage 2 response in January 2025. This 12 month timeframe has been considered along with the overall distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the situation would have caused the resident. As such the Ombudsman has decided a compensation amount of £1,000 is appropriate in the circumstances. This amount falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.
  18. It is important to explain that an order for financial compensation is made in attempts to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. The resident may feel the compensation amount should be greater, especially in light of the impact he says the situation has had on him. However, as explained previously within this report, the Ombudsman can not award compensation for personal injury and the resident is free to seek independent legal advice regarding this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy from October 2024 says it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 11 October 2024 and the landlord appropriately responded on 25 October 2024. However, the landlord took almost 3 months, following the resident’s escalation request on 28 October 2024, to issue its stage 2 response (10 January 2025). This timeframe was not appropriate.
  3. On 20 December 2024 the landlord said it would issue its stage 2 response by 3 January 2025 and it would consider the delay in the complaint being allocated. However, the landlord exceeded the timeframe it set and while its stage 2 response did apologise for the delay it failed to put things right. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments were it fails to meet its service standard for responses. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered a compensation payment, as per its policy, within its stage 2 response.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to issue its stage 2 response within a reasonable time and made no attempt to put things right as part of its internal complaint process. This was a service failure. When deciding an appropriate remedy this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s compensation policy, as such a compensation payment of £100 has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances. This amount falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,100 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handing of reports of ASB.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss any further reports of ASB. It should:
      1. review the evidence already collected along with the action it has already taken and agree its planned approach to manage the case in an action plan, as per its ASB policy.
      2. Explain the support it will provide the resident.
      3. It should share its action plan and details of the support it will provide with the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

  1. Following a review of this report, the landlord should consider whether it needs to implement training for its staff on handling reports of ASB where the perpetrator may be vulnerable. It should let the Ombudsman know its decided approach in relation to staff training.