Sanctuary Housing Association (202306345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306345

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 April 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:
1. the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated May 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association. The resident said she has issues with her mental and physical health. The landlord has recorded that she has vulnerabilities. During her complaint the resident informed the landlord that she has a terminal illness.
On 29 January 2023 the resident reported ASB and noise nuisance to the landlord from a neighbouring property, including shouting, swearing and banging. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 1 February 2023.
The resident submitted a further report of ASB and noise nuisance to the landlord on 3 February 2023. The resident’s son also reported ASB the following day. He reiterated the resident’s concerns about the noise and said:
1. there had been threats to the resident.
2. he had witnessed the level of ASB, abuse and threatening behaviour, alongside other members of the resident’s family.
3. the resident was vulnerable, and he had stayed her for the previous 2 evenings as he was extremely worried for her safety.
4. the resident had reported this to the landlord, but it had not taken any action to resolve the issue.
5. this had severely impacted the resident. Her mental health had deteriorated, and the lack of sleep had exacerbated her physical health problems.
The resident continued to report ASB and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property between February 2023 and August 2023. This included reports of several pets at the neighbouring property, multiple people living there, verbal abuse, that her neighbours were flushing the toilet repeatedly and had their TV on a loud volume. The resident explained that the walls between the properties were very thin. She said the noise was deliberate, usually when she was alone.
The resident also contacted the landlord several times between February and August 2023 and said she was terminally ill and presented suicidal ideations due to the noise.
Between February and August 2023, the landlord:
1. attempted to call the neighbour on 6 February 2023.
2. ensured the resident was safe and contacted a mental health support centre on her behalf on 20 February 2023.
3. wrote to the neighbour’s relative about the noise on 27 February 2023.
4. received a report from the local authority who visited the resident on 15 March 2023. The local authority told the resident that there was no evidence of ASB.
5. discussed options of sound proofing and noise recordings with the resident on 4 April 2023.
6. received an email from the police on 12 April 2023. They said they had spoken with the resident on the phone and would speak with her neighbour.
7. engaged in a joint visit with the local authority on 18 April 2023.
8. called the neighbour’s relative on 19 April 2023 to discuss the noise.
9. contacted the resident on 13 June 2023. It said it was unable to find evidence of noise nuisance and the resident should use a noise app to record any noise issues which were not household noise, and which became repeated or prolonged.
10. visited the resident on 20 June 2023 to discuss the noise. It explained that there was little it could do as there was no evidence that the noise was anything other than day to day living noise.
11. completed a welfare check on the resident on 1 August 2023 following her presenting suicidal ideations. It also spoke to the resident’s daughter.
12. recorded on 16 August 2023 that it would contact the resident’s other neighbours to see if they had witnessed the noise.
13. liaised with the resident’s representatives and her support worker.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2023 and told it to provide a written response to the resident by 22 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 September 2023.
The resident and her advocate continued to report ASB and noise nuisance in September 2023. The landlord:
1. spoke with the resident on 4 September 2023.
2. offered for a professional witness to visit the resident’s property and mediation, which the resident accepted.
3. arranged a joint visit with other agencies.
4. sent diary sheets to the resident.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. The landlord said:
1. although a housing officer attempted to contact the resident within timescale, there was no record that it completed an action plan as per its process.
2. the resident’s housing officer had been in contact with the police and local authority. Both had received reports of noise from the resident but did not have any evidence to support the allegation.
3. it had discussed the resident’s concerns with her neighbours, but it could not take action without evidence, and it had made this clear to the resident.
4. it worked with partners to obtain evidence and offered the resident options with regard to providing evidence for example noise monitoring equipment.
5. it was sorry that it had not managed this case as well as it should have and that it had failed to provide the service the resident should expect.
6. it had partly upheld the resident’s complaint because it had not completed an action plan, its record keeping was not sufficient, and it had failed to adequately investigate the option of soundproofing.
7. it had asked the housing officer to contact the resident by 22 September 2023 to agree an action plan to manage the case going forward.
8. it had also requested that the housing officer discussed the option of reporting noise nuisance to the local authority’s environmental health team.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 September 2023 and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The resident continued to report ASB between September 2023 and July 2024. These included the same issues as previously raised and the neighbours continuously running taps and leaving the vacuum cleaner running. The resident said her neighbours were intimidating her by approaching her front door and following her from room to room and banging on the walls. The resident reiterated that this was impacting her mental and physical health and continued to present suicidal ideations.
Between September 2023 and July 2024, the landlord:
1. completed a joint visit to the resident with her advocate on 27 September 2023 and explained it could not enforce restrictions to stop her neighbours using a foot path next to the resident’s property.
2. completed a joint visit to the neighbour’s property with an environmental health officer from the local authority on 27 September 2023. This was due to reports of pets and an unpleasant smell from the neighbouring property. Both were satisfied that the property was in a reasonable condition. The landlord discussed the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance with her neighbours.
3. arranged for a professional witness to attend the resident’s property.
4. liaised with the local authority about the resident’s concerns of multiple people living in the neighbouring property. They said they had
5. inspected the neighbour’s property and any noise that the resident heard was not deliberate noise nuisance but due to the layout of the property.
6. sent a link to the resident for the noise app on 5 October 2023 and received the resident’s diary sheets the following day.
7. received noise recordings from the resident’s advocate and through the noise app.
8. chased the surveyor for an update on the soundproofing.
9. called the police on the resident’s behalf on and contacted her when she presented suicidal ideations.
10. installed noise recording equipment in the resident’s property on 2 November 2023.
11. contacted the resident, her advocate and support workers to discuss the ongoing issues and provide updates.
12. completed welfare checks and attended the resident’s property to discuss the issues she was experiencing and advised her to contact support services when she was feeling suicidal.
13. completed spot checks at the neighbour’s property.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2024 and told it to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response by 20 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of her complaint on 19 July 2024.
The landlord continued to receive reports of ASB from the resident in July and August 2024. The landlord chased up sound proofing, provided updates to the resident and liaised with her advocate. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. The landlord said:
1. it was sorry for its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It did not acknowledge it and delayed in responding. The resident was not given the opportunity to escalate her complaint to the investigation stage of its complaint process.
2. following the stage 1 response it received no further communication from the resident about her complaint, so the landlord closed it in line with its complaint policy.
3. it had reviewed all available evidence and concluded the noise from the neighbouring property, rather it was day to day noise.
4. it had requested an acoustic survey and would explore the option of soundproofing.
5. although it had told the resident that soundproofing might not be approved the time taken to make this decision was longer than deemed necessary. It would like to apologise for this.
6. it was clear that communication with the resident could have been more proactive and was not to the standard the landlord would have liked.
7. it had informed the relevant manager of its findings so this could be discussed with the wider team to improve its future service.
8. the resident’s complaint had been partially upheld. In recognition of the inconvenience the resident had experienced with the handling of her complaint, the landlord not providing an outcome about soundproofing her home and delays in providing noise monitoring equipment and a professional witness it offered £1,000 as a ‘goodwill gesture’ as follows:
  1. £400 for the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  2. £200 for failing to provide noise monitoring equipment and mediation services at the beginning of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. £400 for failure to provide a decision on soundproofing in the resident’s home as promised in April 2023.
Following this the resident continued to report ASB. The landlord arranged for a professional witness to re-attend in August 2024, completed a joint visit with the police to both parties in October 2024 and installed soundproofing in November 2024. The local authority installed noise monitoring equipment in February 2025. The landlord also offered the resident a move to a new property in February 2025.
When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, she said that the ASB, harassment and noise nuisance continued. She said this had negatively impacted her mental and physical health and she was unable to use the garden due to her neighbour’s behaviour. She said she wanted the landlord to stop her neighbour and his family continuing with the ASB and harassment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the ASB issues had impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will not tolerate behaviour which will cause or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance. Examples include excessive noise such as loud music which may cause a disturbance, offensive drunkenness, threats of violence such as bullying or abuse, using abusive or offensive language and keeping a large number of animals or pets.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints, published in October 2022, defines household noise as everyday noise. Such as the closing of doors, children noise and people talking and walking about in their homes. It also recommended that to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. it takes swift and effective action to address ASB, working collaboratively with partner agencies to ensure it took a joined-up approach.
2. upon receipt of the initial report it will complete a vulnerability assessment to ensure the case is categorised correctly as red or green and the local housing team were aware.
3. it will contact the resident to discuss the situation in more detail and to complete section 2 of the vulnerability assessment. This is usually completed within 1 working day for red cases and 5 working days for green cases although this may be flexed, depending on the ASB reported and the availability of staff.
4. where any vulnerabilities are identified, it will ensure that the case records are updated if necessary, so that this can be considered when taking action to resolve the case.
5. although the investigation will vary depending on the ASB reported and the individuals involved, there are several key activities that will normally form part of an ASB investigation:
  1. interviewing complainants, as agreed at first contact, but where possible within 5 working days of a first report.
  2. interviewing alleged perpetrators, usually after the complainant
  3. speaking with any witnesses of the ASB and recording their comments.
  4. considering whether diary sheets were required for ongoing issues.
  5. reviewing evidence such as noise monitoring equipment.
6. it will complete an action sheet to ensure that records are kept of all discussions and agreed actions.
7. it aims to resolve ASB cases as swiftly as possible by using early intervention and informal approaches to stop any behaviours that are causing nuisance or distress to others. It will also focus on putting preventative arrangements in place to reduce the risk of a similar situation in the future
8. examples of informal action include:
  1. mediation (formal or informal).
  2. signposting to support services.
  3. verbal or written warnings.
  4. acceptable behaviour contracts.
  5. environmental health referrals.
9. if the alleged perpetrator denies the allegation and there is no evidence to suggest that the incident took place, complainants and alleged perpetrators will be advised that no action will be taken but the situation will be monitored.
The resident initially reported ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbours on 29 January 2023. The landlord completed a vulnerability assessment on 1 February 2023. Although it is unclear how the landlord categorised the report, the decision to complete a vulnerability assessment was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord attempted to telephone the resident on 6 February 2023, but she did not answer. It was appropriate for the landlord to try and contact the resident in line with its ASB policy which states that for ASB categorised as ‘green’ it would contact the resident within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident again. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to do so. The landlord also failed to complete an action plan in line with its ASB policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident and her representatives made several reports of ASB and noise nuisance between February and April 2023. The resident presented suicidal ideations during this period and said the noise was deliberate and targeted at her.
The landlord discussed soundproofing and noise recordings with the resident when it attended her property on 4 April 2023. There is also evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour’s relative about the noise, liaised with partner agencies and the resident’s representatives. This included a joint visit to the resident’s property with an ASB officer from the local authority on 18 April 2023. The landlord ensured the resident was safe when she presented suicidal ideations.
This was appropriate because the landlord’s ASB policy stated that it would work with partner agencies. It was also appropriate for the landlord to discuss recordings with the resident as its ASB policy says it would consider relevant evidence. Additionally, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure the resident was safe when she presented suicidal ideations. Although the landlord’s policy says it will signpost to support services, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the mental health support centre on the resident’s behalf under the circumstances.
However, there were some delays in the landlord discussing the resident’s reports of ASB during this period. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed the resident’s reports of ASB with her between February 2023 and 4 April 2023, including setting out what actions it would take in response to her concerns. This was despite the resident presenting suicidal ideations. This was not appropriate as its ASB policy states that it will take swift action, and vulnerabilities will be identified and considered when taking action to resolve the case.
The landlord discussed soundproofing with the resident but there is no evidence it followed this up or provided regular updates to the resident. Although the resident was told this may not be approved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept the resident updated with its actions and decisions in line with its ASB policy.
The resident submitted further reports of ASB between May and August 2023. She also continued to present suicidal ideations. During this time, the landlord visited the resident’s property and carried out welfare checks. It explained there was no evidence of noise nuisance. The landlord advised the resident to use a noise app and said that it would contact the resident’s other neighbours to see if they had witnessed the noise.
It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out welfare checks when the resident presented suicidal ideations. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident about using the noise app in line with its ASB policy. The landlord had previously discussed noise recordings with the resident in April 2023. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident’s other neighbours to discuss the reports of noise. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered mediation or an environmental health referral, following the resident’s reports of further ASB. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy says it will take such action.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that where there is no evidence of ASB, residents would be told that no action would be taken. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints states that landlords should manage resident’s expectations. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that the reports of noise did not constitute as ASB in accordance with its policy. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered what further actions, information or signposting it could have provided to the resident outside of its ASB policy. For example, this may have included consideration of a good neighbourhood management strategy, separate from its ASB policy, as recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
Additionally, the landlord contacted the resident and told her it would not take any action regarding her reports of multiple pets in the neighbouring property. This is because the landlord said that residents were allowed up to 2 pets. While the landlord informed the resident that 2 pets were permitted, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s reports that there were multiple pets in the neighbouring property in accordance with its ASB policy. This is because its ASB policy says it will consider behaviours such as keeping a large number of animals or pets. The resident also reported an unpleasant smell. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform her what action it could take in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failures regarding its handling of the ASB case in its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023. It said it would contact the resident to:
1. agree an action plan which should include:
  1. regular contact arrangements.
  2. details of how she could provide evidence through the use of sound monitoring equipment or the noise app.
  3. access to its independent mediation service and the possibility of a professional witness service.
However, the landlord did not consider the resident’s repeated concerns about there being several pets at her neighbour’s property.
The resident and her advocate continued to report ASB, noise nuisance and harassment between September 2023 and August 2024. The resident continued to present suicidal ideations. She reiterated that the noise her neighbours were making was deliberate and they were trying to intimidate her.
In response, the landlord visited the resident with her advocate on 27 September 2023. The resident said her neighbours were approaching her front door to intimidate her. The landlord explained that it could not stop the neighbours using the path by the resident’s property. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns in order to manage her expectations about the actions it could take. However, there is no evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident about her reports of ongoing ASB. This was not appropriate as the landlord said it would do this in its stage 1 response.
The landlord completed a joint visit with an environmental health officer to the neighbour’s property the same day. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this as its ASB policy says it would liaise with partner agencies. However, there is no evidence that it communicated the result of this to the resident. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this.
The landlord arranged for a professional witness to attend the resident’s property in September 2023 to assess the noise. It also provided a link for the noise app, installed noise monitoring equipment and provided diary sheets. It was appropriate for the landlord to take this action in accordance with its ASB policy which says that it would consider evidence relating to reports of ASB. However, there was an unreasonable delay in it doing this considering the resident had been reporting concerns about noise since January 2023.
The landlord explained that some of the entries on the diary sheets submitted were for normal household noise and could not be considered ASB. It also said it had reviewed the noise recordings and it had spoken to the neighbouring property about the noise. The neighbouring property said the noise was not deliberate. It was appropriate for the landlord to review the evidence provided by the resident, because it was in line with the actions set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. There is evidence it communicated its decision with the resident and managed her expectations about the actions it could take.
It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the police when the resident presented suicidal ideations. The landlord’s policy on vulnerable residents states that it would signpost to support services. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow these incidents up with welfare visits and advise the resident to contact support services when she felt like this.
The landlord’s records show that the noise monitoring equipment it installed in the resident’s property in November 2023 was found to be faulty and was no longer used. There is no evidence that the landlord considered installing more noise monitoring equipment. Given the resident’s ongoing reports of noise, would have been reasonable for landlord to do so to try and gather further evidence in line with its ASB policy.
Although the landlord did chase the surveyor about the soundproofing there was an unreasonable delay in providing an outcome to the resident. Additionally, many updates were only provided when the resident and her representatives chased the landlord. This was unreasonable. There is also no evidence that the landlord arranged mediation as agreed with the resident. This was not appropriate as its ASB policy states it would take this action.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 20 August 2024 the landlord reiterated that the noise the resident was experiencing was every day noise and not noise nuisance. However, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings when handling the resident’s reports of ASB. It offered a total of £600 as a ‘goodwill gesture’ for this. It said the noise was due to the layout of the properties and it had requested an acoustic survey. Again, the landlord did not consider the resident’s concerns about the number of pets at the neighbouring property or address its other failings when handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
After its final stage 2 response, the resident continued to submit several reports of ASB, and the landlord arranged for a professional witness to reattend the resident’s property in August 2024. The witness was unable to observe any noise. It also completed a joint visit with the police to both parties in October 2024.
The landlord installed soundproofing in the resident’s property in November 2024 as the cost was comparable to completing an acoustic survey. However, the resident continued to report noise nuisance from the neighbouring property. The landlord confirmed that the local authority installed noise monitoring equipment which detected some noise, but it was not classed as statutory noise nuisance. The landlord offered the resident a move to a new property in February 2025, but it said she declined this.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has liaised with partner agencies and explored a number of options to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from the neighbouring property. It also acknowledged that there were unreasonable delays in providing noise monitoring equipment, a professional witness and an outcome on soundproofing the resident’s property. The landlord has also acted appropriately when the resident presented suicidal ideations. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would share its findings with wider teams.
The landlord and partner agencies have determined that the noise is everyday noise and not a statutory nuisance. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its findings to the resident, the landlord:
1. failed to consider adopting a good neighbourhood strategy in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
2. failed to agree an action plan with the resident as stated in its stage 1 response and in line with its ASB policy.
3. failed to arrange mediation as agreed with the resident.
4. delayed in discussing the ASB with the resident from February 2023 to April 2023.
5. delayed in making a decision on soundproofing when it said it would.
6. failed to consider installing additional noise monitoring equipment when the equipment it had installed was found to be faulty.
7. did not contact the resident’s other neighbours about the noise when it said it would.
8. failed to address the resident’s concerns about the number of pets in the neighbouring property in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord has acknowledged some of its failures in its complaint responses. It has also taken some action to put things right including providing a professional witness, access to the noise app and diary sheets. The landlord has also installed sound proofing in the resident’s property.
However, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration because the landlord failed to identify and address all of the above failures in its complaint responses. The landlord has not considered adopting a good neigbourhood strategy, agreed an action plan with the resident or arranged mediation. The landlord is also yet to address the resident’s concerns about the number of pets at the neighbouring property in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident told the landlord that its handling of her reports of ASB caused her distress and upset. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation to recognise the distress caused to her.
The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord has paid the £600 compensation offered for its failings. Having carefully considered our guidance on remedies, the offer of compensation was in line with our guidance and recognised the distress caused to the resident. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation. However, the Ombudsman orders the landlord write a letter of apology to the resident for the additional failures found in this report.
We also order the landlord to consider what further measures it could take to try and alleviate the issues the resident is experiencing. This could include agreeing an action plan, mediation or a good neighbour agreement in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and its complaint responses. The landlord should write to the resident with the outcome of this.
The landlord should also provide a written response to the resident regarding her concerns about the number of pets in the neighbouring property, in line with its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It aimed to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord defines a complaint as 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 a resident or group of residents.
This was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
The resident first reported ASB in January 2023. She then continued to contact the landlord and demonstrate her dissatisfaction on a regular basis until 1 September 2023 when the Ombudsman told it to provide a response by 22 September 2023. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction. Additionally, the Code sets out that the landlord should be able to identify and respond to complaints without the involvement of the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 September 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was not appropriate as it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures.
The resident wrote to the landlord and demonstrated her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate her complaint. The resident continued to show her dissatisfaction in regular contact with the landlord until the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2024 and told it to acknowledge her escalation within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response by 20 August 2024. This was not appropriate as the Code sets out that landlords should be able to recognise and respond to escalation requests without the involvement of the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 19 July 2024 and sent its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. The stage 2 response was not appropriate as the landlord said it had not received any further contact from the resident about her complaint since the stage 1 response. The resident had responded on 26 September 2023 and demonstrated her dissatisfaction and had showed this on a regular basis since then. However, the landlord did acknowledge some of its complaint handling failures at stage 1 and offered £400 as a ‘goodwill gesture’ for this.
After careful consideration of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. We consider that the landlord has offered reasonable redress of £400. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord has paid this. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the additional failures found in this report.
2. consider what further measures it could take to try and alleviate the issues the resident is experiencing. This could include agreeing an action plan, mediation or a good neighbour agreement with the resident. The landlord should write to the resident with the outcome of this.
3. provide a written response to the resident regarding her concerns about the number of pets at the neighbouring property, in accordance with its ASB policy.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this report.