Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (202345185)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345185

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

15 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord that commenced in July 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has mental health difficulties that are known to the landlord and social services. Throughout the resident’s communication with the landlord, she said that noise nuisance was causing her great distress and impacting her everyday life. On numerous occasions she said that she had thoughts of self-harm.
Throughout the case, the landlord communicated regularly with the resident’s support worker. This included arranging joint visits and discussing plans to support her. The resident’s reports were also discussed at Joint Action Group (JAG) meetings – a multi-agency intelligence–led local partnership focused on ASB and supporting vulnerable individuals.
For context, the landlord placed the resident under its “vexatious complainant sanction” on 17 April 2023, when she was a tenant of another one of its properties. The records suggest that the landlord made this decision based upon the guidelines within its persistent or vexatious complainant policy and the impact her level of communication was having on its services.
Between 30 August 2023 and 15 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions to report ASB. Her reports specifically concerned noise nuisance from 2 separate neighbours. One of the neighbours lived directly above the resident, and the other in the property next to the residents on the ground floor of the building. The noise mainly included banging, footsteps and loud televisions.
On 28 November 2023, the landlord and the resident’s support worker visited her to discuss her reports of ASB. The resident provided the landlord with her diary of the noise nuisance she had experienced. This included 43 separate entries of disturbances from both neighbours between 20 August 2023 and 23 November 2023. During the meeting, it was discussed that the resident may have “over-sensitive hearing”, and it was agreed by all parties that the landlord would await the results of her hearing test on 1 December 2023 before it decided on an appropriate course of action.
The resident reported a further 6 incidents of ASB of a similar nature to the landlord between 29 November 2023 and 7 December 2023. She said that one of the neighbours was banging, had the television on “full blast” and was stomping around, and that the other neighbour also had their television on loud. She told the landlord that as a result, she “had not slept for 8 days”.
During this period, the resident’s support worker informed the landlord that the resident’s hearing test came back “normal”, however she may suffer from a condition that made her hear certain noises that would cause distress. This would need to be investigated by a doctor.
The landlord subsequently opened an ASB case against one of the neighbours on 7 December 2023 and contacted them to discuss the resident’s allegations.
On 8 December 2023, the resident requested to make a formal complaint about the handling of her ASB case and reported a further incident of noise nuisance.
On 18 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 separate occasions to report further noise nuisance. She said that she “could not deal with it over Christmas”. She also stated that she had “already filed a complaint, which had been ignored”.
The landlord visited the resident on 5 January 2024. During the meeting, the resident provided the landlord with further diary sheets, which included 17 entries of noise nuisance between 4 December 2023 and 1 January 2024. During the meeting, the landlord told the resident that it had investigated her reports and found that the noise she was experiencing was “normal day-to-day noise”.
It also advised her that it had received a report from the neighbour in the property above, about her posting a letter through their door that threatened she was going to call the police. The landlord’s records stated that the resident admitted she had been banging on the wall after she had been advised to refrain from doing so in a previous meeting. The landlord informed the resident that it would therefore be issuing her with an “advice warning letter”. Following a verbal altercation, the resident asked the landlord to leave her home.
On 9 January 2024, the landlord issued the resident with an advice letter. This was the first stage of its ASB “incremental approach” within its ASB policy. It explained that the purpose of the letter was to ensure that she was fully informed of the situation, and that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement because she had:
1. Delivered a letter to a neighbour on 9 December 2023 which caused a nuisance and disturbance.
2. Admitted to banging on the living room ceiling and wall with a walking aid on 28 November 2023 and 5 January 2024.
3. Been verbally abusive to 2 of its staff members on 5 January 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 January 2024 to request recording equipment to be installed to record the ongoing “amplified” noise from her neighbours. She also stated that she did not want to deal with the previous housing officer as they had been “bullying her” and they “did not believe her”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 February 2024. It said that it would provide her with access to a noise app. It explained that this would enable her to record the noise nuisance, which would allow it to review the issues she was experiencing.
On 4 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had submitted some noise recordings via the app. She also told it that she felt harassed by the neighbour, and that whenever she had someone at her property, the neighbour was “always outside getting involved and spreading lies about her”.
Within her correspondence, the resident also requested to make a formal complaint. She said this was because she was unhappy that the landlord had issued her with an ASB advice letter, as in her opinion the notes she had posted to the neighbours were not abusive or threatening.
On 8 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord again that she would like to make a formal complaint. She said that:
1. The landlord had not done enough to address the issues she had reported about her neighbours, and the situation had gone on “too long”.
2. The landlord was discriminating against her due to her mental health.
3. As an outcome to her complaint, she requested that the landlord apologise and allocate her a different housing officer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 March 2024 and provided its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024. Within the response, the landlord stated that:
1. It did not dispute what the resident was experiencing, but it could only take action against evidenced breaches of tenancy. Based on what she had supplied it so far, there was not enough evidence for it to take action against the neighbours. It had therefore now provided her with access to a noise monitoring app to record any future disturbances.
2. It could not find any evidence that it had discriminated against her.
3. She had admitted to using a walking aid to hit the lounge ceiling and wall. It had therefore issued her with an ASB advice letter as there was evidence she had breached her tenancy agreement.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 27 March 2024. She said that the findings of the landlord’s investigation were incorrect, and she only banged on the walls the “odd time” because she was in severe distress. She asked the landlord to arrange a meeting to discuss the complaint in person.
On 18 April 2024, the landlord sent the resident a letter to provide her with an update on her ASB case. It said that it had spoken to the neighbours, considered her testimonies from its visits, and reviewed the 16 noise recordings she had submitted. It concluded that while it agreed there was noise coming from the neighbours’ properties, it did not believe it was intentional or targeted noise nuisance. It stated that it believed the noise was of an acceptable level, and constituted daily living noise, associated with living in flats. It stated that it was therefore closing the ASB case and provided the resident with instructions on how to report any new ASB incidents in the future. It also acknowledged that she wanted to move out of the “flat environment” and encouraged her to actively bid on suitable properties.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions between 20 April 2024 and 24 April 2024. She reported new incidents of noise nuisance and told the landlord that she revoked her consent for it to communicate with her support worker.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 April 2024. It provided a timeline of events, offered the resident £500 in compensation, and stated that:
1. It was sorry for failing to confirm in writing the action plan it had agreed during the meeting with her on 28 November 2023.
2. It was sorry for failing to follow procedure when it opened the ASB case on 7 December 2023. It explained that it did not allocate an ASB rating or notify her in writing that the complaint was to be investigated.
3. It was sorry for failing to be transparent about the purpose of the meeting on 5 January 2024.
4. Its decision to issue her with an advice letter was appropriate.

Events after the end of the complaint process

The resident has continued to report noise disturbances to the landlord and police on an intermittent basis.
The landlord has continued to monitor the resident’s concerns and welfare through the JAG partnership and advised the resident to contact her GP and support worker.
The landlord informed this Service that it offered the resident a 1-bedroom bungalow on 5 December 2024. The resident told this Service in January 2025 that she had declined the offer of the bungalow as it did not meet her needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of the ASB has negatively impacted on her mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate her concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The resident has also reported issues of discrimination. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. This is also in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme. However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported noise constituted a nuisance. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if the response was fair in all the circumstances.
Within its ASB policy, the landlord defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
Additionally, the landlord’s ASB procedure states that upon receiving a report of ASB, it will:
1. Record the detail and open a case.
2. Contact the complainant within 3 working days.
3. Assign an ASB rating (1, 2 or 3) to the case.
4. Formally acknowledge the complaint in writing.
The resident first reported a noise-related ASB incident to the landlord on 30 August 2023. The landlord responded to the resident 4 working days later, on 5 September 2023, asking her to confirm some further information about the incident and to explain how this was impacting her. This was slightly outside of its target 3-day timescale outlined in its procedure but is not considered an excessive delay that was likely to cause significant detriment.
This Service has seen no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord, however she reported issues of a similar nature on 17 September 2023. She told the landlord that she wanted to end her tenancy as she could not live with the constant noise and stated that she had thoughts of self-harm. The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a person reporting ASB is identified as being vulnerable, a referral may be made to relevant support services. The Ombudsman therefore finds that it was positive that the landlord contacted the resident’s GP the following day about its concerns for her wellbeing. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to inform the resident that it was going to do so.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that all reports of ASB will be recorded, although not every allegation will be categorised as such. It explains that this is because some reports could be considered as everyday living noise rather than ASB, and therefore they may not be investigated under the terms of its policy. The evidence suggests that the landlord failed to log the resident’s reports on 30 August 2023 and 17 September 2023 as an ASB case on its internal systems. This Service acknowledges the landlord’s concerns that the resident had reported issues of the same nature to it previously, when she lived at a different property. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord acted inappropriately as it should consider every report of ASB on its merits. Its policy also states that the reporting party will be notified at the earliest opportunity whether the matter will be investigated.
Following the resident’s reports of ASB on 15 November 2023, the landlord attempted to call the resident on 20 November 2023 to discuss the reports, which was reasonable and in line with its policy timescales. As it was unable to reach the resident, the landlord contacted her support worker to discuss the issues further. The support worker confirmed that the resident had an appointment scheduled for a hearing test to check if she had an issue with her hearing that made her more sensitive to noise. The landlord arranged a joint visit with the support worker. This was appropriate and demonstrates that the landlord was taking a multi-agency approach to support the resident.
Following the landlord’s visit on 28 November 2024, it is reasonable to assume that the resident was happy with the outcome as she emailed it the same day to say that it had “really helped”. However, there is no evidence that the landlord logged an ASB case on its systems, which was inappropriate. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan, in writing, of what was agreed during the meeting.
Between 29 November 2023 and 6 December 2023, the resident reported a further 6 incidents of ASB to the landlord. During this period, the landlord communicated with the resident’s support worker to discuss its concerns about the resident’s wellbeing, which was appropriate. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident on all these occasions which was unreasonable.
Following the resident’s reports on 7 December 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case the same day against one of the neighbours and contacted them to discuss the resident’s allegations. While this was a positive action from the landlord, it must be noted that the resident had been reporting ASB since 30 August 2023. It was therefore inappropriate that it failed to open the ASB case until 3 months later. Also, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord opened a second ASB case against the other neighbour. This was unreasonable given that the resident had reported both neighbours on multiple occasions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 8 December 2023 and 18 December 2023. During this period, the landlord visited one of the neighbours to discuss the resident’s allegations and discussed the case with the resident’s support worker. Both of these were positive actions from the landlord. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or updated her on the actions it had taken, which was inappropriate. In mitigation, it is accepted that the landlord may have been limited in the level of update it could share for reasons of data protection. Nevertheless, it should have provided some form of update and explained why it was unable to share further details, if this was the case.
The landlord visited the resident on 5 January 2024. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to inform her in advance of the meeting that it was going to discuss counter-allegations with her. In doing so, it may have prevented the issue from escalating during the meeting and causing the resident distress.
On 6 January 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it was going to issue her with an ASB “advice warning” letter. In line with its ASB procedure, the use of the word “warning” was incorrect and could have caused the resident confusion about the level of action it was taking against her.
On 9 January 2024, the landlord issued the resident with the ASB advice letter. It outlined the relevant procedure, and the alleged behaviour and evidence. Taking all facts into account, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s decision to issue the resident with the advice letter was fair and appropriate. It was also in line with its ASB procedure and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 January 2024 to request a “noise box” to be installed to record the noise from her neighbours. This Service finds that it was inappropriate that the landlord did then not inform her that it had provided her with access to the noise app until 27 February 2024. Additionally, given that she had been reporting the issues since August 2023, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have offered this to the resident sooner.
Following the resident’s email on 4 March 2024, the landlord responded to her on 8 March 2024. It told her that it had received the 3 recordings she had submitted through the noise app, and once it had listened to them, it would provide her with an update on the ASB investigation. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB procedure. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord logged the resident’s new concerns about the neighbour “harassing” her, which was inappropriate.
The landlord informed the resident on 18 April 2024 that it had closed her ASB case. This Service acknowledges that the landlord did not have substantial evidence to take action against the neighbour. It also obtained supporting evidence from the resident’s support worker, who informed it that other than daily living noises, they had not heard any disturbances during their visits to the resident’s property. However, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from their ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This includes mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering mediation between the parties and documented its decision. This was unreasonable.
Additionally, noise caused by environmental factors such as the fabric of the building may be mistakenly attributed to the actions of a person. The evidence suggests that the property above the resident’s had wooden flooring installed. Given the number of reports the resident had made about “stomping” noises, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the building with the aim of identifying the root cause of the noises, including potential issues with flooring or soundproofing.
A detailed assessment of the landlord’s stage 1 response is covered within the complaint handling section of this report. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to recognise any failings within its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB at this point, indicating that it did not complete a sufficiently thorough investigation. It therefore did not offer the resident any compensation. It also did not provide her with an update on her request to be allocated a new housing officer. This Service appreciates that changing personnel is not always logistically possible. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have informed her of its intentions around her request, and its reasons for doing so.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation if it has failed to follow policy and procedure. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation at stage 2. Within its compensation policy, this was reflective of a ‘high’ level of impact to the customer and the maximum amount that it could pay. Based on the landlord’s stage 2 findings alone, this Service agrees that its offer was reasonable. However, as it did not recognise or apologise for all the failings identified within this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
Throughout the resident’s reports of ASB, she told the landlord on numerous occasions that she was having thoughts of self-harm. The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a report of ASB is received, it will make an assessment of vulnerability on every case which will be included as part of the Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM). RAMs are shared with partner agencies, where required, to determine the most appropriate course of action and/or protection. The landlord informed this Service that it did not undertake risk assessments when the resident made her complaints of ASB, as she was already being managed as a high priority risk due to a previous safeguarding referral. This was evidenced throughout the case, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord handled the wellbeing of the resident appropriately.
However, while it may have been a reasonable and fair approach for the landlord to abstain from undertaking further standalone risk assessments, it would have been appropriate for it to document this within the ASB case, to make it clear why it had not followed its own ASB policy. In addition, it should have considered completing an ASB-specific risk assessment if it had not already done so and documented that it regularly reviewed the level of risk posed to the resident (which may have changed over the period assessed).
Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings in this case, which amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Additional compensation has been ordered to reflect the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s offer.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the resident was under the landlord’s “vexatious complainant sanction” at the time of the complaint. The evidence suggests that the landlord had restricted the resident’s contact. The landlord’s persistent or vexatious complainant policy states that when a new complaint is received from a resident who is treated as “unreasonable, persistent or vexatious”, the new issue should be treated on its merits, and a decision will need to be taken on whether any restrictions are appropriate or necessary. The Ombudsman has not considered the reasonableness of initially applying the policy and associated restrictions to the resident, as this matter did not form part of the current complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will accept complaints via a range of methods, including email. The landlord did not inform the resident of the reason why it failed to acknowledge her request to make a formal complaint via email on 8 December 2023. This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident on 18 December 2023 when she said that she had “already filed a formal complaint, which had been ignored”. It would have been appropriate (if in the landlord’s opinion the resident’s contact was unreasonable) for the landlord to inform the resident of how she should be communicating with it going forward, and to document its reason for refusing the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. On 29 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that she felt bullied by a staff member. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have recognised the resident’s comments as dissatisfaction and escalated the issue to a formal complaint, if she wished to do so.
The resident again requested to make a formal complaint on 4 and 8 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged her request on 13 March 2024. It stated that it would provide her with its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The evidence suggests that the landlord overlooked the resident’s email from 4 March 2024, and in total, took 7 days to acknowledge her complaint. This was 2 days outside of its policy timescales but is not considered an excessive delay that was likely to cause significant detriment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2024. It stated that it was supposed to respond to her by 22 March 2024 and apologised for the delay. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to communicate with residents during the complaints process, and it was good practice for the landlord to inform the resident of any anticipated delay. However, this Service finds that the landlord’s email on 25 March 2024 was confusing. This is because it had already informed her on 13 March 2024 that it would provide its response within 10 working days (by 27 March 2024).
The landlord then provided the resident its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024. From the date of acknowledgement, this was within 10 working days, which was reasonable and in line with its policy timescales. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays in acknowledging the complaint (including her requests in December 2023), and, in line with its compensation guidance, offer an appropriate amount of compensation for poor complaint handling.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it found no evidence that it had discriminated against the resident. As explained earlier in the report, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, this Service finds that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with her and ask her to explain how she had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it carried out a sufficiently thorough investigation into her concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and consulting contemporaneous records), and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what she no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 March 2024. It is unknown what date the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, as this Service has seen no evidence of this. This is indicative of poor record keeping within its complaint handling. This is not in line with the Code, which states that a full record must be kept of the complaint, including all correspondence with the resident.
Within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she requested to discuss the complaint “face to face” with the landlord. The Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at either stage of the complaint process, either to introduce its complaint handlers or to discuss her complaint and the outcomes sought. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so, particularly where this has been explicitly requested. In any event, the landlord should have replied to the resident regarding her request for an in-person meeting.
On 25 April 2024, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response. The timing of this was reasonable and within the target timescales outlined in its policy.
Within its final response, the landlord provided a clear timeline of events of the ASB case. However, it did not include an assessment of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to 15 November 2023. As her reports in August 2023 and September 2023 were related to the same issues, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not include them within its review of its handling of the case.
The landlord also failed to identify any of the complaint handling failings highlighted in this report within its final response to the resident. It consequently did not offer her an apology or any compensation in recognition of this, which was inappropriate. It also shows that the landlord was failing to learn adequately from its complaints.
To summarise, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord failed to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that we have found there was maladministration within its handling of the associated complaint. Compensation has been ordered to reflect the landlord’s failures identified within this report and has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation guidance as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £750 in compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
  1. £600 for its handling of her reports of ASB. This includes the £500 previously offered by the landlord at stage 2, plus an additional £100 in recognition of the further failures identified within this report.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to do the following within 8 weeks of this report:
1. Arrange training for relevant staff involved in handling ASB. This should be done in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on noise complaints, with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. Reports of noise nuisance are handled in accordance with its own policy.
  2. Where risk assessments are not applicable to a case, it maintains robust records to explain why.
2. Arrange training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. Complaints are acknowledged and responded to within the timescales outlined in the Code.
  2. Complaint investigations include a comprehensive review of all relevant records.
  3. Complaint investigations include a review of its complaint handling.
  4. Compensation is offered to residents in accordance with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.