Newark and Sherwood District Council (202324726)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324726

Newark and Sherwood District Council

29 November 2024

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was a secure tenant. His tenancy began in February 2023 and ended in February 2024. He occupied the property with his partner and their young daughter. The property is a 2-bedroom flat and the landlord is a local authority. The resident has Asperger’s and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). His partner has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health.
4. The resident’s complaint relates to ASB from a neighbour who lives in a flat below the property. The resident made numerous reports about the neighbour during his tenancy. They often referenced intrusive noise, late night gatherings, drugs and alcohol use. The resident first raised concerns about noise while the family were moving to the property. Initially, he was reluctant to raise a formal ASB report because he wanted to foster good relations with the neighbour.
5. The resident was in regular contact with the local authority’s environmental health (EH) team during the timeline. His ASB reports were frequently directed to EH in the first instance. On 31 March 2023 the landlord supplied him with diary sheets to record incidents. There is no evidence to show it raised an ASB case at any point. Subsequently, it issued a number of formal warnings to the neighbour. The warnings were prompted by separate actions taken by EH. Eventually, it was decided there was insufficient evidence to support further measures against the neighbour. Around this time, the parties began to discuss rehousing the resident.
6. The resident complained to the landlord in September 2023. He felt it should have evicted the neighbour. In reply, the landlord said EH had led the response to his ASB report about the neighbour. It also said it had acted in line with good practice. The resident escalated his complaint soon afterwards. The evidence suggests his concerns were broadly the same. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in mid-October 2023. It said it had taken proportionate action against the neighbour. It did not identify any issues with its ASB handling. The resident continued to report incidents subsequently. He moved several months later.
7. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a call on 27 November 2024. He was unable to recall whether he raised his formal ASB report with EH or the landlord. He felt the landlord signposted him to EH as it had noise monitoring equipment. He told us he felt the police were “useless” and they were unwilling to take any further action against the neighbour without supporting evidence from other parties. He said he spent around £1,500 installing a fence at the property. He felt the landlord should have contributed towards his moving costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. The evidence shows the ASB issues were ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or financial loss. The resident may choose to seek legal advice on these matters.
9. We can assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions when it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and his related complaint. Our role is not to establish whether an individual party is responsible for ASB or tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. We can only consider a local authority’s actions while it is acting in its capacity as a landlord. Any concerns about the activities of a local authority’s EH can be directed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

10. On 2 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about various matters. He said his family would move into the property after some repairs and decorating were finalised. He also said he noticed loud music and shouting from the neighbour’s home. He confirmed he did not want to make a formal ASB report about the neighbour at this point. He said he would speak to them first to try and resolve matters amicably. The landlord replied 2 working days later. It said the resident should report any ongoing noise issues so it could investigate accordingly. This was a prompt and reasonable response by the landlord in the circumstances.
11. The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 March 2023. He said he had reported the noise to EH. He also said EH had confirmed it would write to the neighbour about the matter. The resident wanted the landlord to contact EH and prevent the letter from being sent. He said the neighbour apologised to him after his interaction with EH. He wanted to give them an opportunity to amend their behaviour. He reiterated that he would prefer to have good relations with them. The resident’s approach was understandable in the circumstances. Given his directions, the landlord did not need to raise an ASB case at this point. However, it would have been good practice to create a central record to monitor incidents/events.
12. The resident’s request caused some confusion for the landlord. It replied no letters had been sent because it did not have a corresponding ASB case. Subsequently, it contacted EH after the resident reiterated his request. On 10 March 2023 EH told the landlord it had withdrawn the letter “just in time”. Four days later, the landlord told the resident it had been sent. The evidence shows it gave him incorrect information about the letter. Since the confusion caused an initial delay, it is reasonable to conclude the resident was disappointed by the landlord’s perceived failure to prevent EH from issuing a letter.
13. On 20 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord about access arrangements. He said the neighbour’s guests often passed the property’s front door “at indecent hours”. He suspected they were drug users. He asked if it was possible to install fencing. He also said he had visited the neighbour at 4am because loud noise had woken his daughter. The resident confirmed he was on the brink of raising a formal ASB report. The landlord replied the next day. It said there was a shared access footpath that could not be obstructed by fencing. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that conflicts with the landlord’s assertion about the footpath.
14. In its reply, the landlord offered to raise an ASB case and explained the initial actions it would take. It said it could not control the type of people who visited the neighbour. However, the neighbour should be mindful about the noise levels. It also said that, if he made a report, the resident would be asked to record incidents using diary sheets. In addition, the neighbour would be notified about a report but they would not be told who made it. The evidence shows the landlord responded swiftly to the resident’s concerns. It set his expectations accordingly and gave him sufficient information to make an informed decision. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
15. The resident declined the landlord’s offer on the following day. He wanted to give the neighbour more time. He asked if it was possible to fence off the property’s garden. He said the neighbour had a dog and he was not sure if it was friendly. He wanted to ensure his daughter had a safe place to play. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to his enquiry at this point. Tenancy records show it issued diary sheets to the resident on 31 March 2023. This was 8 working days after its previous offer to raise an ASB case. There are no records to show what prompted the landlord to issue the sheets. In addition, there is no evidence to show it raised an ASB case at this stage.
16. The landlord’s ASB policy states persistent, unnecessary or excessive noise, shouting and loud music can constitute ASB. The resident’s reports met this criteria. The landlord should therefore have raised an ASB case to manage the situation accordingly. The policy also says the landlord will conduct and record a risk assessment to ensure “vulnerable victims are identified at an early stage”. In addition, it will work closely with other agencies and share information “so that victims do not get overlooked”. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a risk assessment at this point. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord could have used the information gathered during an assessment to signpost the resident to relevant support agencies.
17. The evidence suggests the resident may have raised a formal ASB case with EH at this point. It is noted he established a relationship with EH at an early stage in the timeline. Subsequent events confirm he often directed his reports to EH in the first instance. Later, the landlord said EH had taken the lead in responding to his ASB reports. If that was the case, the landlord should have captured this information in its records. Given the close working and information sharing requirements in its policy, it would have been reasonable to create an action plan in cooperation with the resident and EH. This would have helped to set the resident’s expectations and define the parties’ responsibilities.
18. It is reasonable to conclude this approach would have given the landlord an overview of EH’s initial response along with an opportunity to shape it. This may have prevented some important initial steps (such as risk assessments or action plans) from being overlooked. Similarly, there is no evidence to show the landlord offered mediation services to the resident at this point. Mediation is the first preventative measure listed in the landlord’s ASB policy. It can be an effective tool for decreasing tensions if it is used early in a dispute. It is recognised its effectiveness decreases over time. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have swiftly offered mediation services in line with its policy.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms it can play a supporting role to other agencies in some cases depending on the type of ASB that is being reported. Given its responsibilities to the resident, it should have satisfied itself that EH was managing the situation accordingly. In other words, where the landlord is supporting another agency, it should ensure the case is being handled in line with its own policy, any relevant guidance and best practice. There is no indication it did this. The evidence shows it missed opportunities to improve the resident’s situation and/or tackle the ASB at this point. The landlord’s approach was inappropriate and there were problems with its record keeping.
20. On 12 April 2023 the resident told EH that a dog linked to the neighbour had fouled on the property’s garden. He said the neighbour was currently having a house party and he had smelled cannabis again. He also said the situation “had caused [his] partner to have a mental breakdown” and he was at “breaking point”. The resident highlighted his vulnerabilities. He said he would call the police if the gathering lasted beyond 10pm. He sent a follow-up email to EH just before 2am. He said the noise had reduced following a visit from the police.
21. The landlord visited the resident with EH several hours later. This was to complete a prearranged settling-in visit. Tenancy records show EH installed noise monitoring equipment (NME) at the property. The joint visit shows the landlord was collaborating with EH. The resident updated the landlord on 18 April 2023. He said he had “barely heard” the neighbour since the NME was installed. He felt they knew about the installation. He asked if the landlord had received his fencing permission form. On the same day, the landlord replied it had approved his request for fencing. This was a swift response to his enquiry. Its timing suggests the landlord was monitoring the ASB situation accordingly.
22. The evidence shows the landlord also drafted a formal warning document at this point. This is due to the signature date recorded on the document (18 April 2023). Its ASB policy shows it takes an incremental and proportionate approach to ASB issues. It also shows the landlord’s ASB prevention measures include verbal and written warnings. It is noted the landlord demonstrated good practice at this stage. This is because it proactively drafted a warning (to issue the neighbour), even though the resident reported the situation had improved. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and consistent with its ASB policy.
23. On 25 April 2023 the resident reported further ASB to EH. EH relayed his report to the landlord on the same day. The resident said the neighbour’s fire alarm sounded multiple times during the night and the noise awoke his daughter. He also said, the neighbour started a bonfire near the property and then left it unattended. The resident also said their dog was barking all night and he was disturbed by the sound of furniture being moved. The evidence shows the landlord issued the warning document to the neighbour soon afterwards. It also shows the landlord’s previous actions enabled it to respond effectively when there was an escalation in the reported ASB.
24. The warning document said the landlord felt the neighbour was in breach of several tenancy terms. It referenced noise, drugs, visitors, dog fouling and the condition of the neighbour’s garden. It said the neighbour should modify their behaviour immediately and the warning would stay in place for a year. Based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to issue the neighbour a formal warning at this point.
25. The resident reported further noise to EH in the early hours on 27 April 2023. He copied the landlord into his email. He said the family had spent “another restless night” due to the neighbour and their guests. He also said they were fed up with the lack of sleep and regretted moving to the property. The landlord emailed EH the following day. It said it had only just issued a formal warning and further evidence was required to support stronger measures. EH issued the neighbour a community protection warning (CPW) on the same day. This is further evidence of effective collaboration between the landlord and EH.
26. On 29 April 2023, the resident told EH the neighbour’s guests had started making obscene gestures towards his video doorbell. In a further update to EH on 1 May 2023, he said the neighbour had broken the terms of their warning “every night” since it was issued. He felt they were targeting him because they knew he had raised a formal ASB case against them. EH relayed the resident’s report to the landlord the following day. Several hours later, the landlord replied it would issue a stronger warning and it would prepare the document that afternoon. The evidence shows it issued the warning on the same day. This was swift and effective action by the landlord.
27. The warning largely mirrored the landlord’s previous document. However, it included stronger wording and mentioned potential sanctions. It confirmed the elevated warning would stay in place for a longer period of time. The additional warning was issued around 1 month after the resident raised an ASB case. Based on this timing, the evidence shows the landlord swiftly escalated its response measures in line with the incremental approach in its policy.
28. The resident reported further ASB issues to EH on 4 and 6 May 2023. They included late night visitors, shouting and persistent barking from a dog. EH relayed the resident’s reports to the landlord. The resident updated the landlord directly on 11 May 2023. He said the noise had reduced but a dog was fouling near the property’s front door. He also said the neighbour’s garden looked “an absolute state”. The landlord replied the next day. It asked the resident for images to evidence the dog fouling. It said there were many unkempt gardens in the area and it was trying to find a solution to the problem. This suggests the landlord was proactively monitoring the condition of gardens in the locality.
29. The resident made further reports on 12, 13 and 15 May 2023. He referenced increasing noise levels, late night guests, drug use and a fire alarm sounding in the early morning. He felt further action should be taken against the neighbour. The reports were made to EH but the landlord was copied in. The parties’ correspondence shows the landlord made another joint visit to the property with EH on 17 May 2023 and NME was installed again. The evidence suggests the landlord was supporting the resident and helping him to gather evidence about the reported ASB. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
30. On 23 May 2023 the resident reported an incident to the landlord. He said he had called the police due to an argument at the neighbour’s home. He also said the neighbour had threatened some of his visitors with a baseball bat. He said the police diffused the argument, but the neighbour had been making loud noise in their home since the police left. The landlord’s records show EH called the resident on the same day and confirmed it would collect the NME. This was to analyse any recordings linked to the resident’s reports. As the lead agency, it was reasonable for the landlord to coordinate with EH at this point.
31. However, there is no indication the landlord liaised with the police at this stage. Similarly, there is no evidence it asked EH whether it had liaised with them either. This points to a coordination failure on the landlord’s part. Its ASB policy shows the landlord is committed to “effective partnership working” with external agencies including the police. The landlord’s failure to engage with the police was unreasonable given the severity of the reported ASB incident. It was also inappropriate given the approach outlined in the landlord’s policy. The police may have supplied supporting evidence. Similarly, they may have supplied information that prompted the landlord to change its risk assessment.
32. On 7 June 2023 EH relayed a further report to the landlord. It related to loud late night visitors. The resident said he was unable to relax in his home. Later that day, EH updated the landlord about its findings from the NME. It said the recordings showed numerous adults in conversation that was “best described as enthusiastic”. It also said distinct words and foul language were audible. The landlord’s notes show the parties agreed to issue the neighbour the highest level of warning at this point. The evidence shows EH issued the neighbour a community protection notice (CPN) on the following day. Failure to comply with a CPN is a criminal offence. It was reasonable for the landlord to be guided by EH at this point. EH had the relevant specialism and it had analysed the recordings.
33. On 10 and 11 June 2023 the resident told EH its warning had made the situation worse. He said someone had shouted a threat to the whole block about noise complaints. He also said EH should either “get rid” of the neighbour or move his family. EH relayed his report to the landlord on the following day. The landlord issued the neighbour its highest level of warning on 14 June 2023. Based on the evidence provided, the warning was a robust and proportionate measure that was consistent with the landlord’s policy, EH’s findings and the CPN.
34. The resident made a further report on 15 June 2023. He said the neighbour suspected him and he was worried about his family’s safety. The landlord replied it was unable to facilitate a move as he had not lived in the property for 12 months. It offered to visit him and discuss alternative ways of moving. Despite the contents of the resident’s report, there is no indication the landlord considered the situation from a risk-based perspective. It could have revisited any previous risk assessments, liaised with the police and/or (if applicable) considered the resident’s eligibility for an emergency move under any of its relevant policies. Its approach was unreasonable in the circumstances.
35. Tenancy records show the landlord subsequently cancelled a prearranged visit that was due to take place on 21 June 2023. Corresponding notes referenced an emergency. There is no indication the landlord attempted to rearrange the appointment, nor is there any evidence to show that it emailed the relevant information to the resident instead. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. Subsequent events show the parties did not discuss rehousing options again for several months.
36. The resident updated EH on 24 and 28 June 2023. He copied the landlord into his emails. His initial report said the neighbour’s behaviour had improved significantly. However, his subsequent report said they reverted back to their usual activities. The resident referenced noise and a smell of cannabis. He asked EH to issue “a reminder” to the neighbour. He said he did not want to escalate the situation further. EH agreed to his request and advised him to report cannabis smells to the police. Given the resident’s directions, it is reasonable to conclude that no action was required from the landlord at this point.
37. On 7 July 2023 EH relayed a further report of noise to the landlord. It also issued a reminder to the neighbour and updated the resident. It offered to install NME at the property again. It said an eviction would need to be authorised by the courts and strong evidence was required to “justify that course of action”. It asked the resident to copy the landlord into any reports. On 11 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour was having a house party. He said the warnings had not prompted a lasting improvement in their behaviour. He felt they should be evicted and the landlord should take action. The landlord replied the following day. It said a key staff member was on holiday but it had alerted EH to his comments. EH issued the neighbour another reminder letter on the same day. This is further evidence of swift action by the landlord and effective collaboration with EH.
38. The resident reported further noise and gatherings over several consecutive days in late July 2023. On 8 August 2023 he asked EH why further case building was necessary given the amount of evidence that was available. EH replied the following day. It said the resident could keep the NME for a while longer. It wanted to call the resident to discuss the options that were available to it. The resident reported further noise and gatherings to EH on 19, 21 and 23 August 2023. On this date, EH told him it had reviewed the recordings from the NME and discussed matters with the landlord. It said it would issue an abatement notice (which tells a party who is deemed to be creating a statutory nuisance to stop or limit their activities) to the neighbour. It also said the neighbour would be interviewed in due course (presumably by EH).
39. EH updated the landlord on 1 September 2023. It said it had reinstalled NME at the property. It also said the resident had made several recent reports and referenced speaking to the police. On the same day, the landlord asked the police about the resident’s reports. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police at this point. The landlord has not supplied a copy of the response it received from the police. As mentioned, the evidence shows it missed a number of opportunities to liaise with the police prior to this point.
40. The evidence suggests the resident complained about the landlord’s ASB handling on 15 September 2023. The landlord supplied an undated copy of his complaint. It said the landlord did not care about the resident’s situation or the impact on his family life. It also said there was plenty of evidence about the neighbour’s activities. The resident alleged their home was linked to fights, Class A drugs and drug deals. He said that, during a recent meeting with various stakeholders, the landlord unfairly refused to consider eviction action or a closure order (to restrict third party access to the neighbour’s home).
41. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 September 2023. It said EH had led on the resident’s ASB case because it largely involved noise. However, the landlord was involved and working in cooperation with EH. In addition, the landlord had supported EH by escalating its own response each time EH took action. The landlord felt its approach was proportionate and in line with relevant best practice. It said it had visited the neighbour and made enquiries, “but there were no other witnesses or complainants”. Other key points were:
    1. The landlord reviewed the case evidence during a stakeholder meeting with EH and the community protection team. The stakeholders agreed “all possible enforcement action [had] been applied” and the necessary criteria for the resident’s preferred sanctions were not met.
    2. The neighbour had been issued a final stage warning that would stay in place for 3 years. This was the final stage prior to possession proceedings. The police would need to approve a closure order. They were monitoring the situation but no further action had been taken against the neighbour.
    3. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The landlord agreed “there [had] been noise nuisance”. However, it had also identified that noise transfer was unavoidable due to the design and age of the building. The resident was offered mediation with the neighbour.
42. From the evidence provided, it is unclear when the landlord offered the resident mediation or checked the property’s sound insulation. Later, in November 2024, it told us it does not have a dedicated ASB record for the resident’s case. This is concerning in the circumstances. The information seen suggests it took the above mentioned steps around the time that the resident complained about its ASB handling. This is because references to mediation and sound insulation started to appear in the parties’ correspondence at this point. Again, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore these options at an earlier stage in the timeline.
43. The resident reported another noise incident to EH on 1 October 2023. The evidence suggests the landlord escalated his complaint the next day. It did not provide a copy of his escalation request. Its correspondence shows it met the resident on 6 October 2023 to discuss the complaint. The parties’ subsequent correspondence suggests they discussed the landlord’s rehousing process along with the option of a mutual exchange. Subsequently, the landlord told the resident it had passed his contact details to “an involved tenant” as requested. This was intended to provide him with additional support from a third party. This was around 6 months after it should have opened an ASB case for the resident. Although the landlord took some positive steps at this point, it should have reasonably offered the resident additional support earlier in the timeline.
44. On 10 October 2023 the resident reported a further noise incident to the landlord. He also made several reports to EH around this time. In reply, the landlord offered to refer him to its tenancy support service and/or an independent family support agency. These were reasonable actions by the landlord in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the timing suggests its offer was prompted by the resident’s complaint. It should not have taken a complaint for the landlord to share its knowledge and experience with the resident, or for it to offer relevant support.
45. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord reiterated its previous findings around proportionality. It said further enforcement action was not possible at this time. However, it would continue to work with the resident and other parties if the “nuisance” persisted. In addition, it would provide support and guidance in relation to his rehousing request. Since it was responsible for various delays and failures, the landlord’s response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
46. In a subsequent internal note, the landlord said the resident was not open to mediation with the neighbour. It felt that trying to implement a good neighbour agreement might inflame the situation. This was on the basis the resident would have to adhere to this agreement as well. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider alternative prevention measures along with the wider circumstances of the case.
47. On 15 October 2023 the resident told the landlord the noise issues were ongoing. He said it was unfair that his family should have to move. He felt the landlord should remove “problem tenants” and it was irrelevant that the neighbour was vulnerable. The evidence shows EH installed NME again several days later. In an internal email on 20 October 2023, the landlord said it was due to visit the neighbour about the resident’s recent reports. The email shows it was worried they had started reacting to any noise they heard from the resident.
48. On 31 October 2023 the resident was assigned a band 1 priority for rehousing. This was based on his family’s medical conditions. Several days later, he asked the landlord if any financial support was available to help him move. The resident reported multiple noise incidents to EH around this time. On 7 November 2023 he told the landlord its recent visit to the neighbour had made matters worse. On 9 November 2023 the landlord confirmed it would explore whether any charities could help with his moving costs. This was on the basis it could not offer him any financial assistance. This was a reasonable and proactive approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
49. The resident replied he was moving due to the landlord’s inaction. He said the lack of insulation in the property was its problem to resolve. He also said he spent hundreds of pounds decorating the property. In addition, the situation caused him “no end of stress and a lot of depression”. The landlord replied the following day. It said the next stage of its ASB process consisted of mediation or a good neighbour agreement. However, the resident had chosen not to engage with these options. It recalled he advised he would be unable to remain in the property even if the ASB issues were resolved. It also said it had no budget available to help with transfers, but it was trying to source external funding. It encouraged the resident to ask family members for support.
50. It is noted that, given the delays highlighted in our assessment, the landlord’s comments around the resident’s lack of engagement were arguably unfair. The evidence suggests the resident would have been open to mediation in March 2023. He stated his preference for good relations with the neighbour at this point. There is no evidence to show the landlord is obliged to provide funding to help its residents move home.
51. However, at this point the resident told the landlord he had incurred significant costs for decorating and fencing. His comments were made around 1 month after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. There is no indication he raised similar concerns beforehand. It is reasonable to conclude the resident felt the works he completed were improvements and the landlord would benefit from them. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it can make “compensation for improvement payments” to residents who are moving out. It also shows the landlord has a separate policy that governs its approach to these payments.
52. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord reiterated it did not provide financial assistance to help residents move, but it would explore external funding options. The evidence suggests the landlord misinterpreted the resident’s point about his costs. It also suggests the landlord should have referred to its improvements policy and considered whether he qualified for an improvement payment. There is no indication the landlord did this. This was unfair in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude any payment would have had the additional benefit of helping with his moving costs. The evidence shows the resident was impacted by a communication failure and his concerns have not been addressed to date. Based on the timing of our investigation, the evidence shows there was an unreasonable delay of around 13 months.
53. Following the exchange detailed above, the resident continued to report noise incidents to EH. EH relayed the details to the landlord and the landlord asked how it intended to proceed. There is evidence the landlord visited the neighbour in connection with the resident’s reports. In internal correspondence on 24 November 2023, the landlord said an external agency (Home Start) had accepted its referral for the resident, there was no charity funding available, and the landlord had previously told the resident about external hardship loans. It said it would look at the resident’s bidding history (to see if a move could be expedited). The above shows the landlord was taking various steps to support the resident.
54. In an internal note on 4 December 2023, the landlord said it had visited the resident during the previous week. It also said it advised him to bid on suitable properties. In addition, he was encouraged to keep reporting incidents to EH and the landlord. The notes show the landlord was engaging with the resident and providing ongoing support. There was a gap in the evidence at this point. The landlord told us the resident moved to alternative accommodation on 29 January 2024. This suggests the ASB was ongoing for around 11 months.
55. The landlord supplied its case evidence to the Ombudsman in August 2024. It said one of the reasons EH had taken the lead is because it “[had] the availability to install [NME]”. The landlord’s evidence included a case summary from EH. The summary said EH felt there was insufficient evidence to enforce its CPN. It also said EH’s audio analysis showed “a mix of normal conversation, sometimes excited conversation, and the occasional heated conversation/argument”. It referenced poor sound insulation, the resident’s “apparent sensitivity” to noise and the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. It also said the neighbour’s visitors appeared to be part of their support network.
56. In summary, this was a difficult case for the landlord to manage. The resident reported varying noise levels during the timeline and he chose not to escalate matters at points. In addition, EH typically led the response to his reports which added to the complexity of the situation. It was EH that took enforcement action against the neighbour based on its analysis of the recordings. The evidence shows EH felt unable to progress beyond its abatement notice and CPN. Given the level of collaboration between them, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord had some say in EH’s decision-making. However, there is no evidence to suggest it was in direct control. Similarly, the landlord was not directly responsible for the neighbour’s actions.
57. Nevertheless, the evidence shows the landlord was responsible for a number of delays and failures during the timeline. Significantly, it failed to ensure the resident’s ASB case was being handled in line with its own ASB policy. As a result, it omitted several actions that are often beneficial during the early stages of a neighbour dispute. These actions included completing a risk assessment, signposting to support agencies, and offering mediation. Although it tried to use some of these tools around 6 months later, their value was diminished because relations between the resident and the neighbour had deteriorated significantly. The evidence suggests the resident had already experienced considerable distress by the time the landlord signposted him to relevant support services.
58. Later, when there was an increase in the severity of the ASB issues that the resident reported, the landlord missed a number of opportunities to liaise with the police. Had it done this, the liaisons may have improved the landlord’s decision making around risk. Similarly, they may have contributed to the overall body of evidence that was available. That said, from the evidence provided there is no information to show the police took any further action against the neighbour at any stage during the timeline. The landlord also failed to follow up on an offer to discuss alternative ways for the resident to move home. The evidence shows several months passed before the parties discussed the topic again. This was another missed opportunity to improve the resident’s situation.
59. It is important to recognise there were some good aspects of the landlord’s ASB handling. However, the evidence also shows its approach was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate at times. It also shows the resident was impacted by the landlord’s approach. The landlord did not recognise any of the above identified failures in its complaint responses. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
60. In addition, the landlord misinterpreted the resident’s point about his decorating and fencing costs. The evidence shows it should have considered them under its improvements policy. There is no indication the landlord has done this to date. Based on the timing of our investigation, the evidence shows the resident was impacted by an unreasonable delay of around 13 months.
61. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The landlord’s applicable compensation policy does not include any specific guidance around proportionate award levels for discretionary compensation payments.

The landlord’s complaint handling

62. The resident complained to the landlord around 15 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 September 2023. This was 9 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. From the evidence provided, the response was issued within an appropriate timescale. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because it agreed there had been noise nuisance, along with unavoidable noise transfer due to the age and design of the building. In contrast, it did not identify any specific failures or attempt to put things right. It is reasonable to conclude this was a confusing outcome for the resident.
63. The response should have detailed any failures the landlord was responsible for. The decision should have reflected the failures that were identified. Since it was not directly at fault for the issues highlighted in its response, the landlord could have made its position clearer by not upholding the complaint. This may have helped it to avoid any inconsistencies at stage 2. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord’s stage 1 response was misleading.
64. The evidence indicates the resident escalated his complaint around 2 October 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. This was 7 working days later. The landlord’s policy shows it should respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 2. It is noted the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request. It is also noted there were 9 working days between 28 September and 11 October 2023. This confirms that, even if the resident escalated his complaint on the day the stage 1 response was issued, the landlord responded to his complaint within an appropriate timescale.
65. Since the landlord did not provide a key complaint record (the resident’s escalation request), the evidence shows there were also issues with its complaints related record keeping. It is noted there is no evidence the resident was impacted by this issue. Nevertheless, a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of reports, responses and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to them.
66. Overall, the evidence shows there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This is based on the misleading outcome in the landlord’s stage 1 response and a subsequent record keeping issue. Our finding is proportionate given the level of impact to the resident. An apology is sufficient to put things right for him.

Determination

67. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

68. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident in writing for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should recognise that the landlord missed opportunities to improve his situation because it did not ensure the case was handled in line with its own ASB policy, any relevant guidance and best practice. It should also recognise the landlord did not consider his costs in line with its relevant policy due to a communication failure. It should acknowledge the wording in the landlord’s stage 1 response was confusing. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 6 weeks (adjusted to allow for the Christmas period).
69. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £750 in compensation within 6 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is to address the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s ASB handling.
70. The landlord is ordered to assess the resident’s fencing and decorating costs in line with its improvements policy. It may need to contact the resident to gather the relevant details. When it has assessed the information, it must respond to the resident accordingly. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
71. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 10 weeks the landlord should present its findings to its senior leadership/executive team and provide to the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The landlord should also cascade the improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The review should include:
    1. The steps the landlord will take to ensure any ASB cases where it is playing a supporting role are handled in line with its own policy, any relevant guidance and best practice.
    2. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it can recognise and act on opportunities to liaise with the police in ASB cases.
    3. The steps the landlord will take to improve its record keeping (the landlord can refer to Ombudsman’s KIM Spotlight report for guidance).