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

Salvation Army Housing Association (SAHA) (202427460)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427460

Salvation Army Housing Association (SAHA)

30 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’), and his request to be reimbursed for the impact of ASB on him, including the costs of staying away from the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block.
  2. In March 2023, the landlord discussed current noise with the resident, during a period he had been away from his home since November 2022. It noted he did not want to discuss sound equipment until he returned and said it required information from him to act.
  3. The resident returned home around May 2023 and reported issues with noise and dogs. The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator, encouraged the resident to consider mediation, and discussed use of noise apps and equipment which would require him to be at the property. In late June 2023, he said he was going away again. The landlord said this would impact its investigation and in August 2023, it closed the ASB case as there had been no further reports.
  4. In mid December 2023, the resident said he had left home again in mid November 2023, due to loud noise day and night from a neighbour. The landlord said his leaving for periods made cases difficult but that it would speak to other residents. It said use of the noise app and noise equipment would be beneficial.
  5. Around June 2024, the resident reported further noise issues after being away from home for 3 months. The landlord asked him to agree to use of noise equipment. In July 2024, he said he had left home and expressed reluctance to use noise equipment. The same month, the landlord received reports from other residents which it took action on.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 16 July 2024. He raised dissatisfaction that he had experienced ASB for 8 years and kept having to leave his home. He asked the landlord to help move him. He also asked it to compensate him for his time and trouble reporting issues, his travel costs, and the services he paid for but was unable to use when away.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 August 2024.
    1. It said recordings the resident provided for issues with a current neighbour did not show significant ASB. It said the noise fell within normal living noise and would not classify as ASB. It said it had door knocked and not identified any issues. It noted the local authority had offered use of a noise app. It asked him to reconsider mediation. It said it had investigated, and was investigating, some other concerns with other agencies. It asked him to continue to make reports. It identified learning to be clearer about what classed as ASB.
    2. It said it could provide information to the local housing allocation scheme for a review of the resident’s banding, and it offered to add him to a waiting list for an internal transfer.
    3. It declined the resident’s request for compensation due to the lack of persistent noise reports, the non-enforceable issues and the lack of evidence for poor case management.
  8. The resident said he was unhappy with the decision. In mid September 2024, the landlord discussed the complaint with him at his flat. It said its response would be provided the week of 30 September 2024 due to leave.
  9. In late September 2024, the resident reported issues with noise and dogs. The same month, the landlord received reports from other residents which it took action for. It subsequently wrote to the alleged perpetrator and discussed an action plan with the resident, who agreed to noise equipment. However, the local authority reportedly felt the noise app was more suitable, as he intended to go away on 10 October 2024, and the landlord explained how to download this.
  10. The landlord provided its final response on 4 October 2024.
    1. It said it was difficult to comment on ASB issues over the past 9 years, but in the past 18 months, it had acted about nuisance. It noted an ASB case related to the resident’s most recent reports was open, which he would be provided the outcome for.
    2. It explained that where nuisance occurs it seeks to manage the situation. It would work with police to address incidents. It would act when anyone breaches their tenancy. It had to follow a legal process and solutions were not always immediate. It was unable to take any appropriate action without evidence. It said staff would support the resident where they were able and asked him to work with it to gather evidence on any ongoing issues.
    3. It acknowledged the impact the resident said issues had on him. It said that if he spent weeks or months at a time away from the property, this was his choice, and it did not accept responsibility for this. It detailed a support service and his options to move.
  11. On 8 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident that the ASB case had been closed, as proportionate action was taken and there had been no further reports since this. The landlord wrote similar letters to other residents after checking with them that there had been no reports for at least 4 weeks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident says he has experienced ASB for more than 8 years. He says this has impacted his health. It has also caused him to stay away from his home for periods, incur travel costs, and be unable to use utilities and services that he paid for at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman normally expect complaints to be made within 12 months of when an issue complained about arose. This means our main focus is from July 2023, 12 months before the resident complained, to October 2024, when the landlord provided its final response. This also means that our investigation does not consider further ASB that the resident raised in December 2024 and March 2025, after this timeframe. He has the option to raise a new complaint if he is unhappy about the handling of his more recent reports.
  3. The Ombudsman also does not definitively decide if ASB occurred, there has been a tenancy breach, or a landlord is liable for damages. This is for the courts. We can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports in the complaint timeframe and if it followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and his request to be reimbursed for the impact of ASB on him, including the costs of staying away from the property.

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. Following the resident’s reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to his concerns and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies. For example, contact the resident, consider the reports and its options to resolve any ASB, agree an action plan, discuss the case with the alleged perpetrator and other agencies, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
  3. In this case, the landlord took reasonable action in response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint. It considered his reports, set out its position on these and detailed action plans. It advised him to log and report issues and use a noise app, and tried to help install this. It spoke to a witness he mentioned. It wrote to his neighbour and discussed issues with them. It liaised with the local authority and the police. It closed cases when there were no reports for periods. It explained how his leaving at times impacted this and made it difficult to act. It explained its approach and that it could only deal with current issues. It explained his options to move and considered transfers.
  4. The landlord’s ability to help with specific ASB reports, and to try to bring a long-lasting resolution to them, was reasonably limited if the resident left at times and so did not make reports or provide evidence for periods. The main aim of an ASB procedure is for a landlord to try to help stop one party’s behaviour affecting another. As part of this, the landlord will require evidence that issues are unreasonable in nature, which often means evidence to show issues such as loud noise are frequent and ongoing. The evidence seen shows the resident has logged issues, but these have been over a few days at a time rather than for lengthy periods.
  5. The landlord will also require opportunity to try to work with parties involved for a period of time until the reporting party is no longer affected by the other party’s behaviour. It is generally expected to only consider further action, such as enforcement action, when other reasonable interventions for reported ASB has been exhausted. While we understand the resident is so impacted that he feels he has to leave, lack of reports and evidence for periods, and his reluctance to consider mediation, will affect the landlord’s ability to exhaust reasonable ASB interventions and help resolve issues he reports.
  6. The landlord evidently received reports from other residents at the block and continued to separately review suitable action for these, in the absence of reports and evidence from the resident. It obtained and reviewed evidence and took various forms of action in line with its ASB policies. It therefore shows it will take further action where it receives further reports and evidence. However, we see no evidence of any ASB reports from the resident in the complaint timeframe that the landlord failed to consider or take reasonable action for. We also see no evidence where the landlord or other agencies such as the local authority or police considered more action was warranted than was taken.
  7. The resident was frustrated about the level of information that the landlord provided about its actions for reports from other residents, but its handling of this seems reasonable. The landlord is expected to consider reports it receives in a holistic way. However, as noted at paragraph 19, its main aim is to help address the resident’s specific ASB reports. It was therefore reasonable to focus on the resident’s reports rather than anyone else’s in its correspondence.
  8. The landlord also responded reasonably to the resident’s request for compensation for the impact of ASB on him and costs he has incurred staying away from the property. It clearly considered his request and set out its position on this. As the resident has been informed, it is not in the Ombudsman’s authority to decide if the landlord is liable for such compensation. However, its position initially seems reasonable as we do not identify any significant failings in its handling in the complaint timeframe.
  9. While the above is the case, it is noted that after noise equipment was previously offered, it has been more recently decided that this is not necessary after review of the resident’s reports, including via the noise app. The resident has said that noise is difficult to record on the noise app as it is random. The Ombudsman is aware that noise equipment can have the ability to record random noise, so installation of noise equipment may be beneficial in this case. This would give the resident the opportunity to record any random noise he says is antisocial and allow for a clearer view to be taken on this. The landlord is therefore recommended to reconsider installation of noise equipment if the resident reports that loud noise at unsocial hours still frequently occurs.
  10. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experience has been very distressing for him, and we empathise with what he has been through, the landlord shows it took his concerns seriously and responded reasonably given the issues it was provided the opportunity to assist with. When he complained, it acknowledged his experiences, reviewed events, and sought to address his concerns in a reasonable way. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the antisocial behaviour reports.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, and his request to be reimbursed for the impact of ASB on him, including the costs of staying away from the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to reconsider the installation of noise equipment if the resident reports that loud noise at unsocial hours still frequently occurs.