Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202321189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321189

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise.
2. Request for a transfer and concerns about the landlord’s failure to consider his vulnerabilities.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in January 2021. The property is a 1–bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The resident’s complaint relates to ASB from a neighbour (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’) in the form of banging and noise from a revving bike engine. The resident also requested to be rehoused and was unhappy that the landlord did not fully acknowledge his mental health needs.
It is unclear when the resident raised his initial complaint, as the evidence provided was undated and appeared to be an online form. The resident contacted the landlord saying he wanted to complain about its “negligence of his health” and the fact that he had recently been denied a transfer. He was unhappy that the property next door to him had housed 3 different tenants with children in 12 months, which made him feel “suicidal and uncomfortable”. He wanted to know who was responsible for housing the tenants next door, as he felt it was done “deliberately” and the landlord had a “personal issue” with him. He said he wanted a transfer as the property was not suitable for his disability and he needed a garden for his dog.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023. It explained that it did not manage the neighbouring property, but it had spoken with the agency responsible, and it would be discussing the resident’s reports of “noise and disturbance” with its tenants. The landlord went on to say that the resident’s transfer application was not accepted because his reasons for a move did not meet its criteria. It also said it had found no evidence that staff were “intentionally targeting” him, and they had acted in line with its policies and procedures.
On 22 May 2023, the resident reported banging noise from the neighbour. The case notes show that the landlord contacted him on 23 May 2023 requesting to arrange a time and date to visit him and obtain further details of the report. The resident declined a visit and said he did not have to provide any further evidence. The notes say he also said that he felt no one was taking him seriously or doing anything about his concerns, and he wanted to know why he was not given a move.
The case notes for 24 May 2023 said the resident declined to complete a risk assessment and action plan and wanted the ASB case to be closed. The landlord wrote to the resident again at stage 1 on 30 May 2023, following a complaint it had received via the local MP. It said that the medical evidence supplied was insufficient to award a move on medical grounds and quoted details from a letter, in which the resident had said there was no garden for his dog. The landlord went on to say it could not take into account any requests relating to pets. However, it would support the resident in relation to his disability and consider the impact the noise was having on him. It suggested the resident contact its community safety team which could arrange use of an app to capture evidence of excessive noise.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said it did not refer to all the information in relation to his medical needs which was provided in a GP letter, and he felt the response lacked empathy. He said that the noise caused him stress and anxiety. He told the landlord he felt harassed by the neighbour and therefore wanted a transfer move. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 June 2023, saying it had considered the original complaint and the additional information the resident had provided. It accepted that it could have explored further support for the resident in relation to his ADHD. The landlord said it would assist the resident to access support and consider any information that supported his need for alternative accommodation. It partially upheld the complaint.
On 5 and 9 September 2023 the landlord liaised with an external agency in regard to accessing support for the resident. On 28 September 2023, the resident raised a further complaint. He said that:
1. The landlord was discriminating against him and letting the property next door to him to intentionally cause him issues.
2. The landlord was dismissive of his concerns during recent interactions.
3. He was unhappy that telephone calls were not recorded.
4. He thought that a named member of staff had decided he should not be allowed onto the transfer list.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 October 2023. It said that it would not be reinvestigating anything that it had already investigated within its formal complaints procedure, and advised the resident to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied. It went on to reiterate what it had said in previous responses and provided some additional information.
The resident made reports of noise from the neighbour’s revving bike engine on 12 January 2024. Following this report the landlord took the following action:
1. Completed a risk assessment.
2. Prepared an action plan.
3. Contacted the neighbour in relation to the noise report.
On 10 June 2024, the resident was advised by the landlord that he was second on the list for alternative accommodation. His complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service on 24 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint relates partly to his request to be moved based on medical grounds. Paragraph 41d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern local authorities which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. This includes complaints about applications for rehousing, assessment of such applications, and the banding entitlement. Such complaints are the responsibility of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the matter and whether it followed any applicable policies.
This Service acknowledges that this has been a difficult situation for the resident, and recognises that the ASB issues reported to the landlord have caused him distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

The landlord’s ASB procedure says that:
1. A person reporting ASB should be contacted within 3 working days, or if a hate incident is reported, within 1 working day. Contact should be face-to-face where possible, or otherwise by telephone.
2. A risk assessment should be completed and the case categorised.
3. An action plan should be completed explaining what action the landlord has agreed to do and what the reporting party has agreed to do.
It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first complained about the property next door to him. The complaint appeared to have been made via the landlord’s online complaint form. The resident said that he had “had 3 different tenants with children in 12 months” and it made him “suicidal and uncomfortable”. He said he felt a named member of staff was responsible for placing “single mothers” next door to him. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 March 2023. It said that the resident’s complaint was in relation to noise from neighbours with babies who were “loud and hostile”. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord followed up on the resident’s comments in relation to how he was feeling. The ASB policy highlights the importance of making a “note of what physical, mental or emotional effects the alleged ASB has had on the complainant”. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to ascertain what additional support was available to him and make any necessary referrals to specialist support teams.
In the landlord’s response on 14 April 2023, it explained that it did not manage the property the resident was complaining about. It confirmed that it had spoken to the managing agent of the neighbouring property, and the agent was taking action to address his concerns. It was an appropriate step by the landlord to contact the managing agent in order to ensure the external agency responsible for the property was aware of the situation and could take action. Furthermore, it explained to the resident why the named member of staff he had mentioned in his complaint was not responsible for housing any tenants next door to him. This, too, was appropriate.
On 22 May 2023, the resident reported banging, loud knocks and tapping on his bedroom wall from the neighbour. He said that he felt “targeted”, that the situation was having an effect on his mental health, and that he was “afraid to go out”. The case notes show that the landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2023, which was 1 working day later and in line with its policy timescale. This was a prompt and appropriate response by the landlord given the resident had said the situation was affecting his mental health.
The case notes go on to say that the landlord attempted to arrange a suitable time to visit the resident in order to gather further information and complete a risk assessment. However, the resident became upset and declined the visit, saying he “did not have to provide any other evidence”. The notes show that the landlord terminated the call and said it would make a further call after giving the resident time to calm down. This was reasonable and solution–focused.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 24 May 2023, with the case notes saying he requested the case was closed. He said he did not want the landlord to confront the neighbour as it would not be “beneficial”. The landlord also noted that the resident said he did not want to complete a risk assessment or action plan. Government guidance on “putting victims first” under the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014 helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with antisocial individuals. In accordance with this guidance, it is best practice for landlords to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. The landlord has demonstrated that it was actively trying to assist the resident by making 2 attempts to complete a risk assessment.
However, the landlord could have gone further by considering what other support could have been provided to the resident, given it was clear he was upset and said the situation had affected his mental health. The landlord’s ASB policy highlights the importance of making a “note of what physical, mental or emotional effects the alleged ASB has had on the complainant or other members of their family”. Furthermore, its ‘customers with vulnerabilities’ policy says that staff should ensure when providing any service that it is tailored to suit a customer’s needs by taking into account any vulnerabilities or support requirements. The policy goes on to say that further guidance could be sought from specialist care and support services or through the community support team. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered any alternative action. We would expect the landlord to evidence that it had considered its vulnerable person policy, especially taking into account the resident’s comments that he felt targeted and was afraid to go out. This was a second missed opportunity by the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 on 30 May 2023 following a complaint it said it had received via the local MP. The MP correspondence was not provided to this Service, so we are unable to fully assess the response. We will instead focus on the advice the landlord gave the resident in relation to the ASB and noise. The landlord said that there was no evidence of excessive noise and that the resident should “seek advice” from the community safety team, which could provide details of the noise app. In the first instance, it was unfair to the resident to place the onus solely on him to contact the community safety team. However, further in the response, the landlord said it would make a request for the team to contact him directly. This was helpful and demonstrated the landlord was taking his complaint seriously, although the conflicting advice about contact with/from the community safety team could have been confusing.
On 15 December 2023 and 12 January 2024 the resident made further reports of noise from a revving bike engine thought to be owned by the neighbour. A risk assessment was carried out the same day following both reports. This was appropriate and in line with government guidance, as the risk assessment was completed by the landlord at the earliest opportunity.
On 12 January 2024, the landlord sent the resident diary sheets and noise app instructions via post. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy, which says evidence can be gathered in the form of written diaries and (in noise cases) through use of the noise app.
An action plan was also completed on 16 January 2024, which included the landlord contacting the neighbour regarding the noise report. The case notes show that the landlord contacted the neighbour the same day about the reports. This was prompt and solution–focused. It also confirmed details of the action to the resident on 22 January 2024 and said it would contact him within 10 working days or earlier with any updates. This was good practice.
The landlord then contacted the resident again on 26 January 2024. The case notes say that the resident confirmed there had been no noise nuisance and he had not made any noise app recordings. It went on to say that he was “happy” for the case to be closed. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident as it had said it would do. Furthermore, it was in line with its ASB policy, which says that throughout the duration of an investigation the ASB investigator will make contact with the complainant at least once every 10 working days.
In summary, the landlord was proactive in taking steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and noise. Its response included key actions such as carrying out a risk assessment, drawing up an action plan, and speaking with the neighbour. Nevertheless, it could have gone further in supporting the resident by applying its ‘customers with vulnerabilities’ policy, particularly as the ASB policy highlights the importance of making a “note of what physical, mental or emotional effects the alleged ASB has had on the complainant”. The resident had said that the noise was affecting his mental health, and he was afraid to go outside. He had also made comments that he was suicidal and uncomfortable.
We therefore find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise. As a result, £100 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says the impact on the customer will be considered in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Our remedies guidance recommends awards of this level in circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and concerns about its failure to consider his vulnerabilities

It is recognised that there is a shortage of social housing across England. Landlords are, therefore, required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The key questions for this investigation are whether the landlord followed its policy and procedure, treated the resident fairly, and communicated with him effectively.
The landlord’s transfer policy says that a transfer may be considered where:
1. There is independent substantiated evidence that a customer is at risk of physical or emotional harm by continuing to reside in a property. In such circumstances the landlord may restrict areas of choice to ensure it is satisfied that it is minimising future risk.
2. A customer has a medical need for a more suitable property, with evidence supported by a current professional recommendation.
The transfer policy goes on to say that customers seeking rehousing due to an urgent need will be:
1. Expected to increase their rehousing options by registering with a local authority’s choice based lettings system.
2. Encouraged to explore rehousing options on the Homeswapper website (free of charge) for a mutual exchange if they have an assured tenancy.
A transfer request form was completed with the resident on 13 March 2023, for a transfer on medical grounds. A letter from the resident’s GP was attached as supporting evidence. This outlined what the resident had reported to the GP, namely that the living conditions were too small for him. The GP said if the resident was “appropriate for rehousing” he had a “preference” for named local areas.
The resident subsequently raised a complaint via the landlord’s online complaint form, though the exact date of this is unclear from the evidence. He was unhappy that a member of staff he spoke to was unaware of the issues at his previous address and questioned “how could that be a fair decision on his transfer”. He went on to say that his GP had written a letter to say that the property was not suitable for him. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 April 2023 said that the resident’s transfer application was not accepted as it did not meet the transfer criteria. The landlord explained that it would only allow residents to transfer where there was “independent substantiated evidence” of risk of physical or emotional harm as a result of remaining in the current property. In addition, it would consider if there was a medical need with evidence supported by a current professional. This advice was appropriate and in line with its transfer policy.
The landlord went further to explain that it had spoken with its housing team, which explained that the doctor’s letter provided was not written in terms of the GP’s opinion but rather outlined the resident’s medical conditions and his wish to move. This was a reasonable conclusion, given that the GP had referred to whether the resident was “appropriate for rehousing” and had not explicitly recommended a move.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2023, he said he wanted to move from his current property, and he felt no one was taking him seriously. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 May 2023, appropriately outlining its understanding of the resident’s concerns. It confirmed the resident sought a transfer and wanted his disability and health to be taken seriously. It then responded on 30 May 2023, reiterating the information it provided at stage 1. It provided more details to the resident, which was positive in assisting him to understand its decision making process when assessing a transfer request. This included the following:
1. The landlord explained in more detail why the medical evidence from the GP was insufficient on the grounds the property was too small for the resident. It said this was because the property was a “1 bedroom, 2 person house” that was adequately sized for a single person. It did not take into account requests for pet-related needs as its priority was to provide home for people, not pets. This was a reasonable explanation and consistent with the transfer policy. Furthermore, the resident’s tenancy agreement says the maximum number of occupants allowed to live in his property was 2, demonstrating it was of adequate size for single occupancy by the resident.
2. The landlord said it did not have suitable accommodation in the preferred areas requested by the resident. It also said that one of the areas requested by the resident was an area that he was previously transferred from due to harassment. Due to this, it would not be considered appropriate to move him back there. This was also consistent with the transfer policy, which says if there is a risk of harm to a resident, the landlord may restrict areas of choice to ensure it is satisfied that it is minimising future risk.
3. The landlord also confirmed that the resident was registered with its Homeswapper scheme and the local authority’s choice based letting scheme. It suggested that the resident join mutual exchange pages on social media. This was reasonable, as it is not solely the responsibility of the landlord to provide housing options to the resident.
The evidence shows that on 5 and 9 September 2023, the landlord followed up with external agencies in relation to support for the resident. While this could have been considered sooner, it is unclear when the initial contact was made by the landlord, and therefore this Service cannot fully assess the landlord’s actions in relation to this. The external agencies responded on 20 September 2023 to say the resident was on the waiting list for a support worker. It is noted, however, that the resident had said in his transfer application that he was “engaging with mental health services”. This was also supported by the GP letter, which clearly evidenced being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and represented a profession that was best placed to support the resident.
In summary, the landlord was clear from the outset that the resident did not meet the criteria for a transfer. It explained that the medical evidence from his GP did not support a move based on medical grounds. The transfer policy states that its aim is “to assist people to move who are facing urgent and emergency housing situations”. In addition, the landlord reasonably explained that the size of the property was deemed sufficient for the resident’s needs, and this was supported by the tenancy agreement that the resident signed. The landlord has evidenced that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in relation to a move, basing its decision on medical evidence provided by the GP, which was in accordance with its transfer policy.
For the reasons outlined above, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and his concerns about its failure to consider his vulnerabilities.

Determination

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 and noise.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and concerns about the landlord’s failure to consider his vulnerabilities.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him in relation to its response to his reports of ASB and noise.
3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy and ‘customers with vulnerabilities policy’. In particular, it should ensure that where appropriate, the 2 policies are used in conjunction with each other. The landlord should consider including a direction to the ‘customers with vulnerabilities’ policy within its ASB policy.