From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Swindon Borough Council (202321619)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321619

Swindon Borough Council

24 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her report of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident lives in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat in a block. She holds a secure tenancy with a local council landlord. The tenancy started in October 2021.
  2. On 15 June 2023 the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment plan with the resident, in response to reports of noise related ASB from a neighbour. The risk plan showed the resident did not want the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator at that time. She also declined a victim support referral.
  3. Evidence showed in July 2023 another neighbour in the same block as the resident also raised concerns about the noise related ASB, with the landlord.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord sometime before 4 August 2023. She said:
    1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance. She said the landlord had failed to respond to her recent reports of noise.
    2. She had captured video on her doorbell camera showing her neighbour and guest speaking loudly when going in and out of the block late at night.
    3. Her neighbour had spoken rudely to another resident.
    4. She was vulnerable and the issues complained about had impacted on her wellbeing.
    5. The noise app did not record the noise clearly and asked the landlord what action it could take to resolve her concerns.
    6. She did not feel the landlord was listening to her concerns.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 4 August 2023. It said:
    1. It responded to enquiries within 10 working days and according to their priority.
    2. It had responded to her and advised it was dealing with her case at the investigation stage.
    3. It had met with her so she could share her concerns and advised her of the evidence it would need to take action against the alleged perpetrator.
    4. It had checked with the Police who confirmed there had been verbal arguments, but the Police had not taken any further action.
    5. The resident should continue to report her concerns.
    6. It had issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator.
    7. It was still collecting evidence of the alleged ASB, and urged the resident to continue using the noise app.
    8. It would keep her updated with progress but would not always be able to share information about the action it was taking.
    9. The resident could write down her concerns and send them via the reportable app.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 August 2023. She explained the neighbour often slammed her door and was very loud when she spoke. She added that the neighbour consistently argued with her own guests. The resident said the neighbour’s behaviour affected other residents in the block, and it impacted on her well-being. Additionally, the resident told the landlord the neighbour stored her bike in the communal area. She asked the landlord to:
    1. Advise how it was investigating the nuisance.
    2. Fix the neighbour’s door so it would not slam shut.
    3. Move the neighbour to a different property.
    4. Share updates about its investigation.
  7. On 30 Augst 2023 the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It told the resident:
    1. It had issued a written warning to the neighbour after having viewed the video footage the resident provided from her door camera.
    2. It could not control the times other residents left the building.
    3. It had spoken to the neighbour about storing items in the communal area, and had hand delivered a letter to all residents in the building about this.
    4. It had told the neighbour how to report a repair if her door was broken. Additionally, it noted there was a repair request logged on its system with a forthcoming target date for completion.
    5. It had reviewed the footage provided by the resident of the neighbour closing her door and noted that she did slam it. However, it said it could not see the neighbour was consistently slamming the door. It acknowledged the resident was frustrated by the door-slamming, but without evidence the neighbour was doing it on purpose, it could not take any further action.
    6. It acknowledged the Police had attended the block, but noted their attendance was in relation to different issues and not ASB.
    7. It acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the matter complained about was having on her. It explained that as a social landlord it was required to house people with varying vulnerabilities.
    8. Having a guest to stay was not a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy.
    9. It had provided the resident with advice about ASB.
    10. It had responded to her almost daily and had explained it would liaise with police about the most recent incidents.
    11. Based on the evidence, at that time it was not proportionate to evict the neighbour.
    12. It had one other complaint about the neighbour and would work with the resident and others to resolve the issues. Additionally, it said it could offer mediation to all residents in the block.
  8. As part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord she explained that she had a neurodevelopmental condition and was vulnerable, and the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour was having a negative impact on her well-being.

Post internal complaints process.

  1. Evidence showed the landlord monitored the reports of ASB and issued warnings and notices to the neighbour.
  2. In communication with this Service the resident said she did not think the landlord’s processes were inclusive. She said she did not feel the landlord took account of her vulnerabilities when dealing with her reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not our role to investigate the incidents or establish if the behaviour took place as alleged. Our role is to look at the evidence available to determine if the landlord handled the situation in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

  1. On 20 June 2023 the resident told the landlord about noise from the neighbour’s property in the early hours of the morning. She told the landlord that she had changed her mind about the landlord raising her concerns with the neighbour.
  2. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took any action as a direct result of the information provided by the resident. However, the landlord has provided evidence that it was in contact with another neighbour about the reported ASB, and on 29 June 2023 the landlord said it would verbally warn the neighbour of the ASB.
  3. The resident asked the landlord for an update on its progress on 23 July 2023. She told the landlord the ASB was ongoing. In response on 27 July 2023 the landlord said it was still investigating the ASB.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take an evidence-based approach to dealing with reports of ASB and it will take legal action where it is proportionate and reasonable to do so. Additionally, it states it will take an incremental approach to dealing with reports of ASB.
  5. Evidence showed the landlord followed an appropriate process when dealing with the ASB. It issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator on 3 August 2023 and a community protection notice on 9 October 2023.
  6. In response to the resident’s explanation to the landlord that the ASB was having a negative impact on her well-being and her explanation that she did not feel able to communicate effectively with the landlord. The landlord sign-posted the resident to an advocacy service, who it said would be able to help her report her concerns. This was a reasonable response. Evidence showed the resident used an advocate.
  7. We can see the landlord has reacted appropriately to the reports of ASB. Additionally, in its stage 2 response it set out the action it had taken as a direct response to reports of noise and ASB from the resident. This was appropriate.
  8. Additionally, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the action it could take. This was appropriate.
  9. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had provided the resident with written advice about ASB and the use of doorbell cameras. Additionally, it said it had responded to her almost daily. We have not seen evidence of this.
  10. It is important that landlords keep clear records of all interaction with residents reporting ASB. Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and rely on in its management of the ASB case. Accurate and complete records also help a landlord review its handling of the ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings.
  11. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the landlord’s correspondence with the resident or notes of interviews with the neighbour. In this case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  12. Having carefully considered the information available, we are satisfied the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was appropriate and therefore make a finding of no maladministration.
  13. However, we have made an appropriate recommendation to the landlord about record-keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we recommend the landlord:
    1. Reviews our spotlight report on Knowledge and information management and conducts a self- assesses against the recommendations contained within it.
    2. Considers implementing a vulnerable persons strategy setting out:
      1. How it will recognise a vulnerable resident.
      2. How it will ensure to record vulnerable residents and their needs.
      3. How it will respond to a vulnerable resident.
    3. Confirms to us its intentions in respect of our recommendations