South Derbyshire District Council (202347884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347884

South Derbyshire District Council

14 August 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour below.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. She lives in a flat in a sheltered housing block. The resident has shared with the landlord that she has mental health issues.
The resident reported problems of ASB in 2022 from a new neighbour in the flat below. These related to noise and the smell of cannabis coming through to her flat. The landlord and its environmental health (EH) team responded, but she continued to report that the ASB was ongoing.
The resident made a formal complaint on 20 October 2023. She said the landlord had failed to communicate with her about the ongoing ASB, which she had reported multiple times.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 October 2023. It said it had responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. It had advised her to record incidents, liaised with the police and made improvements to her flat. It had insufficient evidence to take any further action against the neighbour.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said the smell of cannabis was still present in her home. She understood only a warning letter could be sent as her claims had not been verified. However, she expressed her frustration at how difficult it was to obtain evidence of the smell. She felt the landlord and the police could do more to address the problem.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023. It mainly reiterated its stage 1 position. It provided an extensive list of contact it had with her, and noted there were only minor instances where it had not acknowledged log sheets. It suggested she contact the police directly if she felt they could obtain the evidence she needed.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She said the ASB was impacting her health and she felt threatened and intimidated by her neighbour and their family.
It was noted on 19 April 2024 that an officer had visited the block and had detected the smell of cannabis when asked by the resident to come into her flat to check.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has complained to the landlord that the ASB and its lack of action to resolve it has negatively affected her mental health conditions.
The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the effect the ASB has had on her mental health is better dealt with via the court.
The resident was unhappy with the priority banding she was given by the council for a housing transfer. We cannot investigate matters from councils, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. The assessment of housing applications is not a landlord function, as such her complaint on this issue cannot form part of this investigation. We will, however, consider whether the landlord responded appropriately, and what advice it gave the resident about moving.

ASB

On receipt of a report of ASB a landlord is obliged to undertake a balanced investigation to establish the nature and extent of the problem. It should also weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord does not have a housing ASB policy. In managing incidents of ASB it relies on the council’s corporate ASB policy and commitments in its tenancy agreement.
The ASB policy states that the landlord will lead on any ASB complaints involving its residents or its properties. It gives nuisance behaviour and drug related issues as examples of ASB. It states its lead for complaints on noise is EH.
Evidence suggests the resident first started experiencing ASB in November 2022 (exact date unknown). This was noise nuisance from a new neighbour in the flat below. On 30 November 2022, EH sent the neighbour a warning letter about noise disturbance which referenced banging, shouting and loud intercourse.
The landlord visited the resident on 09 December 2022 to discuss her report of the smell of “weed” coming into her flat and ongoing noise nuisance.
The landlord’s policy states when it receives a report of ASB it will respond in 3 working days. It will also work with the resident to assess their risk of harm. It was not clear what the response time was, as it had not recorded the date of her report. It opened a case on its monitoring system on 12 December 2022, which recorded a ‘lower risk’. It did not provide a supporting risk assessment.
The landlord issued the resident with log sheets. We have assumed it also referred her to EH as a further letter from EH on 22 December 2022 confirms receipt of the logs. The letter also advised of its arrangement to install recording equipment in her property until 10 January 2023. It was appropriate to refer her complaint to EH as its policy requires they lead on noise nuisance.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on the 13 December 2022. It said it had received several complaints about cannabis smells coming from her flat into neighbouring properties. It reminded her that complaints of this nature can be considered a breach of her tenancy agreement. This aligned with the actions it says it will take in its tenancy agreement.
The landlord received an email from EH on 23 January 2023. It advised that the recording equipment had captured the type of noise the resident had reported experiencing. EH considered this general household noise and as such, it did not intend to take any further action. They notified it the resident was still experiencing cannabis and cigarette smells in her property and suggested there might be a fault with the building.
Following a further report from the resident on 6 February 2023 of a cannabis smell, the landlord visited the neighbour on 1 March 2023. It discussed the allegations with her, which she denied. She maintained she had been away for the previous 3 weeks staying with a relative. She also said she would be making a counter claim of harassment for the complaints.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement commits to use mediation to try and resolve problems between neighbours. The use of mediation is most effective at the relatively early stages of a dispute, to avoid further escalation. There is evidence it considered this on 15 March 2023. However, because the resident did not want to be identified as the complainant it decided not to. In not doing so she believes it did not follow its ASB procedure. We find that its decision was not unreasonable in light of her request.
After receiving further reports from the resident in March 2023, the landlord referred her to an external victim support service. This action was appropriate as it is a measure set out in its ASB policy. It provides support for residents experiencing ASB and help to guide them through the process and investigation.
In response to the resident’s request to move the landlord had previously given her advice on making a housing application, which she did. It confirmed the council had assessed the resident’s housing application, which was live on its choice-based lettings system. It suggested increasing her range of areas to improve her chances of bidding successfully.
In March 2023 the landlord also sent supporting information about the ASB to the department managing the application. This was in the hope that the reports of the ASB and the impact it was having on her might increase her priority banding on the Housing register. Unfortunately, it did not, which was disappointing for her but outside of its control.
The resident has advised us that the landlord made her aware of the mutual exchange scheme to move. This is appropriate as with the limited social housing stock available, it can increase opportunities to move. Again, she has had no success through this route as her accommodation is restricted to households over 60 years of age.
The landlord attempted an unannounced visit to the neighbour on 22 March 2023, however, it could not gain access. In response to a further call from the resident it emailed her the following day. It advised it had cold called the neighbour and not detected any smell of cannabis. It explained that although the majority of incidents occurred at night it did not work beyond 5pm. It had also devised the following action plan:
1. All further reports of ASB should be made to the housing officer (HO).
2. It would continue to issue diary log sheets.
3. The HO would visit the site every week for the next 4 weeks.
4. It would visit in the mornings as the resident had advised the neighbour goes out in the afternoon.
5. Any evidence of cannabis use found would result in the neighbour receiving a written warning.
6. If it found no evidence, it would record this on the complaint record.
7. All further reports of noise nuisance should be made to EH.
8. The resident was to supply further medical evidence to support her transfer application.
The landlord explained this again to the resident following a request for contact on 3 April 2023 and followed up with an email.
The landlord said it found no evidence of cannabis use during its 4 weeks of visits. While we have noted its observations and commentary on its visits, we have not seen evidence to support it. There was 1 note on 11 April 2024 which said “Attended no smell of cannabis. To look at other flats” Other than this there was no record of the visits, the dates or times they attended or what the visits entailed.
Clear record keeping is a core function in an ASB investigation. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It is because this also assists the landlord in monitoring the case, determining what action is required and providing accurate information to the resident. If there is a lack of evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
Aware incidents occurred more regularly in the evening, on 11 April 2023 the landlord asked the police to investigate on its evening patrols. This was appropriate, landlords work in partnership with other agencies when investigating and addressing ASB.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord spoke to another neighbour to see if they were being affected by the smell of cannabis. It said they were not. However, it is noted that the neighbour said he was not there often and worked nights. This was when the resident said most incidents occurred. This therefore cannot be wholly relied on as evidence that it was not affecting others in the block.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord decided to consider if it could make any improvements to the resident’s property to prevent smell transference. It attended on 24 August 2023 as she could not make an earlier appointment. It identified several areas where fire stopping systems could be improved, gaps around pipework filled and trickle vents fixed or replaced. Her later complaint on 26 November 2023, once work was complete, confirmed this had reduced the smell.
The landlord liaised with the resident’s support representative on 28 June 2023. It advised them of the action it had taken, the challenges in obtaining evidence and the limited action it could take without it. The support worker acknowledged its difficulties and agreed to share this information with her.
The landlord continued to liaise with the police who confirmed they had no drug related intelligence on the block. On 7 July 2023 it had negotiated further evening patrols from them. On 26 September 2023 the police advised that it could not justify any further visits. It had visited the neighbour numerous times and not detected any smell of cannabis.
The landlord continued to review the resident’s log sheets. It advised her on 28 August 2023 that it did not consider incidents of someone speaking loudly on the phone, as ASB. This was appropriate, as it is considered to be general household noise transference.
Our Spotlight report on noise highlights that household noise transference is a growing problem. To mitigate against it our recommendations ask landlords to consider noise insulation wherever possible, which generally supports their net zero plans. Sound insulation in the resident’s bedroom might be something the landlord could consider if practicable.
The resident’s logs said the incidents of noise were waking her and causing sleep deprivation. She said this in turn was affecting her mental health. Although it deemed it to be noise transference and not nuisance, this along with the smell of cannabis was clearly causing her significant distress. Several of her August 2023 incident logs under “impact of the ASB” mentioned “suicidal thoughts” and comments like “I can’t do this anymore”.
The police also alluded to issuing 3 public protection notices (PPN) for the resident, signposting to her G.P. and the landlord. PPN’s are a tool commonly used by the police. They are designed to inform partner agencies about situations where individuals may be at risk.
The statutory guidance for frontline professionals says when considering the response to a complaint, landlords must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim. This is because the more vulnerable can be less resilient to ASB. As such it promotes the use of risk assessments. While they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response.
The landlord’s corporate safeguarding policy commits all its staff and contracted service providers to act if it recognises or suspects a person is at risk of harm. Despite the resident declaring suicidal thoughts and the police issuing a PPN to housing, it was not evident that the landlord took any safeguarding action. Furthermore, the absence of a risk assessment meant the landlord could not demonstrate it factored the resident’s vulnerabilities or risk of harm into its ‘low risk’ assessment.
We acknowledge the landlord devised an action plan, but both the guidance and its policy requires a risk-based response. Without it, it was difficult for us to determine the reasonableness of the action plan and whether it fully considered the resident’s needs.
We acknowledge that a safeguarding referral would not have ultimately changed the outcome of the investigation into the resident’s case. However, in not doing so, it did not demonstrate the victim driven response its guidance requires. It could also not show it acted in accordance with its corporate safeguarding policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2023 effectively closing her case. It said both it and the police had visited the neighbour many times and been unable to evidence cannabis use. It informed her it did not have sufficient evidence to take any further action. It said that it was not proportionate to carry out further visits to the neighbour unless it received more evidence.
Although the landlord’s decision would have been distressing for the resident, it was appropriate. Without sufficient evidence it was limited in the action it could take. To continue to pursue checks on the neighbour with no proof of a breach of tenancy conditions could be considered harassment.
In the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2023 she said the communication from the landlord had been poor when dealing with the ASB. Evidence suggests its communication was more reactive than proactive. However, it did not support that it failed to respond to her contact or that there were any lengthy gaps in communication during the complaint period.
The resident’s escalation request said that “1 well timed visit from the police at a time the cannabis odour was evident would be better than numerous random patrols.” As the comment was about the police the landlord advised her to take this up with them, which was appropriate.
However, the resident’s point was valid generally. There were at least 10 reports of cannabis incidents in the logs, recorded in business hours between February and August 2023. It may have been more beneficial for the landlord to have attended when it was said to be occurring, than the random visits it was carrying out. This was not, however, a service failing as it had visited the site as agreed. It is another action that it might consider moving forward.
The resident’s complaint also expressed her frustration at the challenge of being able to obtain evidence of a smell. She had completed log sheets as requested and could provide incident numbers for reporting it to the police. She said she understood the landlord could not verify this, but this left her feeling as though she was perceived as making it up.
It was understandable that the landlord’s inability to take action on the resident’s reports made her feel like this. However, it went to lengths to refute this at stage 2. It commented twice that it did not dispute the resident was experiencing problems. It re-iterated that the difficulty was in pursuing any action without evidence. It was reasonable of it to acknowledge her concerns and provide her with some reassurance that her integrity was not in doubt.
Overall, the landlord acted on the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it could not evidence that it had fully considered her vulnerabilities in the actions and decisions it took. While it was limited in the enforcement action it could take with the evidence available, this did not mean the behaviour was not happening. It was evident the issues were having a significant impact on her. Government guidance requires agencies to put the victim at the heart of their response, guided by an assessment of harm to them. The landlord was not able to demonstrate that it did this, which was a service failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with orders below. It must:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Visit the resident to complete a risk assessment. Take any necessary action and or make relevant referrals based on the outcome.
3. Arrange with the resident to attend to investigate the smell of cannabis use when she reports this between the hours of 9am and 5pm.
4. Inspect the flat to see if it can make any sound insulation improvements in the resident’s bedroom.
5. Pay the resident the sum of £100 compensation for its failure to demonstrate full consideration of her vulnerabilities in dealing with this matter.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the recommendations in our Spotlight report on noise. In particular developing a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy.