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

Norwich City Council (202305134)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305134

Norwich City Council

12 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the form of noise nuisance.
    2. The resident’s request for it to remove the community protection warning (CPW) issued to him.
    3. The resident’s removal from the “Home Options” account.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 16 February 2023, the resident reported that his neighbour was constantly making noise and doing drugs. He said that he had tried to speak to them but they did not respond. He said he was willing to have a camera installed to capture the nuisance. The resident said if the landlord and police would not do anything, he would physically confront the neighbour. The landlord advised the resident not to physically confront his neighbour. It provided log sheets for the resident to record the incidents as he said he struggled to use the noise app.
  3. On 6 March 2023, the landlord was advised by the police that they had arrested the resident. The landlord also noted that the resident disclosed that he had assaulted his neighbour. It said it would be serving him with a community protection warning (CPW). The resident continued to report noises of jumping, throwing items, and kicking walls from the neighbour’s property. On 26 March 2023, the neighbour reported that the resident had poured water through their letterbox and when they opened the door, the resident poured the remaining cans over them. They said the resident swore at them and was threatening.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman on 18 May 2023. The resident wanted the landlord to stop the noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property, to remove the CPW given to him, and to reopen his “Home Options” account. He said the noise was happening on a daily basis which was causing him sleep deprivation, distress, and inconvenience. He said he wanted to move away.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 June 2023. It said in order to progress his ASB case, it would need to receive recordings on the noise app. It confirmed that it had written to his neighbour regarding the issues he had reported. It said it was investigating whether it was possible to install recording equipment in his property. The landlord said the resident confirmed to his ASB officer that he hit his neighbour, therefore it would not uphold that the CPW was issued on unsubstantiated allegations. It said it would not withdraw the warning. The landlord said it was dealing with the resident’s qualification for the “Home Options” scheme separately through a reviews process.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 June 2023 as he said he did not assault his neighbour and he did not swear at the landlord staff. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023 and confirmed the following:
    1. The resident had submitted an appeal regarding his removal from the “Home Options” scheme. It said it had upheld the original decision to remove the resident. It said there was no right to review within 12 months. The landlord said it had acted appropriately and correctly applied its policy.
    2. It said its investigation into the neighbour’s allegations resulted in a CPW. It explained what a CPW was and that it could give it on the balance of probability. It said given the resident’s admission to his ASB officer and the victim’s reports to the police, it was more likely than not that he did slap his neighbour. It said the CPW was therefore issued correctly and it would not rescind it.
    3. The landlord confirmed that it would work with all residents to address any ASB. It said the resident could help by consistently notifying it of any incidences. It said to date, the resident had not submitted any noise recordings. It said if he was experiencing difficulties with the noise app, to let the ASB manager know, and they will try to assist him.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the issues were still ongoing. He wanted proof from the landlord that he swore at an advisor over the phone. He said he also wanted proof that he had slapped his neighbour, as he believed he only grabbed their jacket. The resident also referred to issues with his windows and balcony doors being in disrepair, he said the landlord would not fix the issues.

Post-internal complaints process

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was able to submit noise recordings via the noise app after the stage 2 response. The landlord installed a noise machine in the resident’s property in March 2024. The outcome was that there was insufficient evidence to take further action.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.”

  1. As set out above, part of the resident’s complaint concerns the decision to remove him from the landlord’s “Home Options” account following allegations that he was abusive and swore at landlord staff. This scheme is a choice-based lettings register for applicants to bid on and access social housing within the local authority boundary. The operation of a choice-based letting register is a statutory function of local government. Therefore, any concerns raised over its operation would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  2. As such, the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint under 42.j. of the Scheme.

Scope of the investigation

  1. In his correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident raised issues concerning his windows and balcony doors. There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint about those issues and they would not have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As a result, we are not able to investigate the windows and balcony doors. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to give a response to those concerns through its internal complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the form of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it may include noise nuisance. The policy states that for noise complaints it will ask the complainant to download the noise app. It says when it receives a report it will make an initial assessment, arrange an appropriate response, adopt a case management approach, and give a single point of contact. It says a high proportion of complaints can be resolved through prevention and early intervention. It describes such measures as “dear neighbour cards,” the noise app, mediation, explaining what support it and other agencies could offer, warning letters, CPWs, and multi-agency partnerships.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the noise the resident was experiencing was excessive. Further, we cannot establish whether a party is responsible for ASB or tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. It should be noted that for a landlord to adopt any firm measures against an alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance, it would require evidence of a statutory nuisance.
  4. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was appropriate and in line with its policy. It has evidenced that it responded to the resident on the same day. It advised the resident to not physically confront the neighbour. And upon the resident explaining his difficulties with the noise app, it provided an alternative way to record the incidents via log sheets. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations by asking him to return the log sheets after 2 weeks and allocating an officer to his case.
  5. The landlord opened a case for the resident on 20 February 2023. It noted that the issues had caused him stress and he had reported his concerns to the police. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the impact and any vulnerabilities for the resident. It recorded his GP details and made a referral to victim support, which was in line with its policy.
  6. The landlord evidenced that it tried to contact the neighbour on 23 February 2023 and it sent a letter to them on 28 February 2023. The letter appropriately outlined the type of noise reported and why it was causing a nuisance and annoyance to their neighbours. It explained what steps it had taken so far and what further action it could take should the issue continue. In the absence of any evidence of the noise at that point, the decision to write to the neighbour was a reasonable and proportionate next step to take.
  7. The landlord received the resident’s log sheets on 13 March 2023. He had documented the neighbour jumping, running, and kicking the walls every day from 21 February 2023 to 9 March 2023. The landlord to arranged joint visits with the police to visit both the resident and neighbour on 14 March 2023. This was reasonable and showed the landlord was working in partnership with the police, which was appropriate given the criminal allegations. Unfortunately, neither party were available at the time of the visit.
  8. The resident continued to report noise from the neighbour. On 16 March 2023 and 26 March 2023, the neighbour reported that the resident threatened them and poured water through their letterbox and then on them when they opened the door. The landlord did have a joint visit scheduled for 27 March 2023 which it subsequently cancelled as it said the police would need to carry out its investigations first. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it recognised that the police should handle reports of criminal behaviour.
  9. It is unclear what the result of the police investigation was, the resident has said there was no further action. The landlord conducted a joint visit with the police to the resident on 4 April 2023. It said the resident spoke about the banging and that it had resulted in cracks on his wall. The landlord took pictures of the cracks but noted that the location of them was on the opposite side to the neighbour’s property. It also noted that there was no adjoining wall with the neighbour as there was a stairwell between the 2 properties. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider structural concerns and whether they could be associated with the reported noise. Although in this case, it does not appear that they were.
  10. The resident continued to make further reports and the landlord noted that the resident did not feel able to send a “dear neighbour” card, was not willing to engage in mediation, and did not have access to a smart phone. It included a risk assessment score. The landlord showed it had reasonably considered the measures available to it to try to remedy the situation.
  11. On 25 May 2023, the landlord explained to the resident that unless he could record and send examples of the alleged constant banging, it would be unable to progress the case further. The resident asked if the landlord could install noise monitoring equipment. The landlord confirmed it would look into it but it could take some time. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable. It had exhausted all the relevant early interventions available to it. It also managed the resident’s expectations regarding the noise monitoring equipment and by outlining what it needed to be able to take any further action.
  12. Overall, the evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and followed its ASB policy. It took proportionate action against the neighbour and showed effective partnership working with the police. It utilised the early intervention measures available to it to help find a suitable resolution for both parties. When those options were exhausted, it appropriately outlined what the resident would need to do for it to take any further action. It also showed consideration to any risk by completing risk assessments and referring the resident to support organisations.
  13. As such, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the form of noise nuisance.

The resident’s request for it to remove the CPW issued to him

  1. In his formal complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to withdraw the CPW as he said the allegations from his neighbour were not true. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord outlined the reasons for the CPW and that it was based on his confirmation to his ASB officer that he had hit his neighbour.
  2. In investigating this complaint, the landlord has shown that it fairly investigated the allegations against the resident. Upon hearing of the resident’s arrest, it contacted the resident in a timely manner and provided him with the opportunity to respond. There were 2 separate occasions where the landlord recorded that the resident said he slapped his neighbour because of the noise nuisance. Following his admission and given the neighbour’s account, it said it would be issuing a CPW to him. The resident did not challenge this or offer any other explanation at the time.
  3. Upon receiving the CPW, the resident stated that he did not hit his neighbour and asked the landlord to remove the warning. The resident asked for evidence of him hitting the neighbour and the landlord informed the resident of the occasions when he said that he did. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It had no obligation to remove the CPW and explained why it would not do so.
  4. While the police took no further action, police must meet a higher burden of proof to take further action. The civil standard of proof which applies to landlords is lower. The landlord appropriately explained this in its stage 2 response. It explained that on the balance of probabilities, it was likely that he did slap his neighbour. It said the CPW was issued correctly and it would not rescind it.
  5. As stated, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB took place or what action the landlord can take, rather whether it acted in line with its policies and obligations. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted fairly and transparently in investigating the incident and issuing the CPW to the resident. It was clear in its communication with the resident about the steps it was taking and why.
  6. As such, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove the CPW issued to him.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will make sure information is available in a resident’s first language if requested.
  3. When bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident stated that he had submitted a complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2023, with no response. This Service then contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 1 response by 9 June 2023. The landlord responded on 30 May 2023 and said it had not previously received a formal complaint from the resident.
  4. This Service has reviewed the letter the resident sent to the landlord on 15 April 2023. The letter was primarily in relation to the decision to remove the resident from the “Home Options” account. Although, he also stated that the allegations made against him by his neighbour were not true. He said that the police did not take further action and referred to the noise disturbance from his neighbour. He said he was trying to explain the situation but he struggled with writing in English. He said he could explain more by speaking. He asked the landlord to review his case.
  5. While the letter did not explicitly state that it was a formal complaint, it is clear that the resident was raising his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions. Therefore, it did meet the landlord’s definition of a complaint. The landlord confirmed it was dealing with the “Home Options” complaint via its appeals process. But the landlord has not evidenced how it was dealing with the other concerns raised. This was not appropriate. Although, the ASB case was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an update on the case and its position on the matters raised. In not doing so, this likely inconvenienced the resident in having to raise the matters again.
  6. In his letter, the resident also referred to his difficulties with writing in English, as English was not his first language. Given this information, it would have been more pertinent for the landlord to have responded to the resident. This is to ensure it understood his concerns and to afford him the opportunity to provide any further information. It would have also been reasonable to record his communication preferences and whether he needed any additional support, such as ensuring information was available in his first language. This would have been in line with its policies and shown consideration to any barriers for the resident in communicating with the landlord.
  7. Taken altogether, we consider that the landlord’s opinion that the resident did not raise a formal complaint prior to the contact from the Ombudsman was not fair in the circumstances. The complaint responses which the landlord provided were detailed and the landlord addressed all the concerns raised. However, the landlord had the opportunity to respond to them sooner. The landlord should have also considered the resident’s difficulties with written English and the impact this could have had on him in its handling of the complaint.
  8. As a result, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord must contact the resident and ensure it accurately records his communication preferences on its systems. It must also pay the resident £100 in compensation to account for the failures identified. The amount is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which were not appropriately acknowledged or put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s removal from the “Home Options” account is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB in the form of noise nuisance.
    2. The resident’s request for it to remove the CPW issued to him.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord must speak to the resident about his communication preferences and if any are identified, it must ensure they are recorded accurately on its systems.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £100 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.