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

Rykneld Homes Limited (202228350)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228350

Rykneld Homes Limited

16 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. At the time of the events complained about the resident was a secure tenant of a first floor flat owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord through this Service on 12 May 2023. He said that he was not happy about how it handled his reports of ASB from his neighbour over the last 10 years. He moved out of the property on 20 February 2023.
  3. On 26 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In this it mentioned that it had closed a previous ASB complaint by the resident on 24 February 2022 and would not consider the issues again. It detailed how it had responded to his more recent reports of noise nuisance and concluded that it had acted within its policies.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of his complaint on 19 October 2023 as he did not consider the landlord’s response was adequate or accurate.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. It reiterated why it had not investigated the resident’s reports of ASB from before 24 February 2022 in line with its complaints policy. It repeated that it had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB since 24 February 2022 and was satisfied it offered him appropriate advice and support in relation to the alleged noise nuisance. It told the resident it was not upholding the complaint or offering any compensation.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its decision not to offer compensation. 

Assessment and findings

  1. In the resident’s complaint, he referred to historical issues of how the landlord had handled his reports of ASB for the 10 years before he left the property in February 2023. The landlord stated in its stage 1 decision of 26 July 2023 that it had responded to its handling of ASB the resident had reported since 2013, in its previous complaint response on 24 February 2022. It said he had not escalated this complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It said in line with its complaint policy it would not re-investigate its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from before 24 February 2022.
  2. The landlord’s decision in its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023 to exclude the events from before its previous response on 24 February 2022 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Scheme which was in effect at the time. This said that it is acceptable for a landlord to not consider a complaint where the events complained about occurred within a reasonable time. This is ordinarily no more than 12 months previously. Our position is that it was appropriate that the landlord decided that it would not consider the issues again. Its complaints policy provides that it would not revisit matters where these have previously been considered. Its position in this respect also accords with our Scheme.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that:
    1. It will consider noise nuisance as ASB. However, sounds of ‘general home living’, such as people walking on floors upstairs, doors being shut or carrying out DIY will not be classed as ASB.
    2. When a resident reports ASB it will ask them for full details of what has happened. The landlord will decide on what action, if any, to take and discuss this with the reporting resident.
    3. In most cases it will issue the reporting resident with an incident diary to help with its investigation. The policy says it will consider other evidence which may prove someone has caused ASB such as statements from other witnesses or noise monitoring equipment.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 26 July 2023 referred to several events between 25 February 2022 and 4 December 2022 where the resident reported excessive noise from the neighbour’s property. It stated that it spoke to the neighbour informally about the concerns, but that on each occasion the resident either did not want to raise a formal ASB case or told it he was not willing to fill out incident diaries. Though the approach above would be consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy there is no evidence from the landlord to support its account of events. We also have not received evidence from the resident to show what he reported to the landlord during this time.
  5. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  6. Due to a lack of records, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to reach a view on the landlord’s handling of any alleged ASB during this time and what information it gave the resident. If there was an issue with evidence not being available due to the events complained about having occurred more than 12 months previously the landlord should have explained this in the complaint response. This may have been a valid reason why the records were no longer available. Notwithstanding this, as there is no clear evidence of the landlord finding that there was noise nuisance between 25 February 2022 and 4 December 2022, we cannot say there was a failure in its handling of ASB or its decision to take no action against the neighbour.
  7. On 5 December 2022 the landlord opened an ASB case as the resident had reported the level of noise from the neighbour’s flat was becoming worse. The landlord carried out an unannounced visit to the neighbour’s flat the following day to investigate the resident’s concerns. Following its visit the resident raised concerns the neighbour was continuing to deliberately make excessive noise. On 12 December 2022 the landlord told him it would investigate it as a noise nuisance complaint. This was a reasonable response in line with its ASB policy.
  8. The landlord asked the resident to complete incident diaries as part of its investigation but he refused to do this. On 31 January 2023 the landlord closed the ASB case as the resident had not returned any evidence about the alleged noise nuisance or made further complaints about the level of noise from the neighbour’s flat. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy it could have discussed with the resident whether he would provide other evidence to support his allegations, such as recordings from noise monitoring equipment. However, its actions did not differ significantly from its ASB policy.
  9. From 31 January 2023 up until the resident moved out of the property on 20 February 2023 there is no evidence that he reported any further incidents of excessive noise from the neighbour’s flat. As such, we would not have expected the landlord to take any further action in line with its ASB policy.
  10. In summary, we consider that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was reasonable overall. When the resident made the most recent report, as supported by the evidence, the landlord took reasonable and timely action to investigate this in line with its ASB policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.