Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202440546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440546

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

19 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 anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom bungalow and has lived there with his wife since February 2020. The landlord has informed us it is aware the resident has a cochlear implant.
3. On 26 September 2024 the resident reported to the landlord there was noise coming from his next-door neighbour, which was keeping him awake at night. The landlord opened an ASB case the same day and completed a risk assessment. On 1 October 2024 the landlord advised the resident to download the Noise App.
4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 November 2024. He said the noise had impacted his sleep for over 3 months and the Noise App did not capture the low frequency sounds he was experiencing. The resident said the neighbour was using a sub-woofer speaker and he wanted the noise to stop.
5. On 5 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident and said it had investigated the matter in line with its ASB policy. The landlord said it been unable to evidence any noise coming from the neighbour’s property.
6. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 20 December 2012. The landlord responded with its stage 2 complaint response on 8 January 2025. It said it was satisfied the resident’s ASB reports had been investigated thoroughly, and it was unable to take action.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. The policy also sets out the action it will take following a report of ASB being made. This includes:
   1. Acknowledging reports within 1 working day.
   2. Completing a risk assessment and assigning a level of handling priority (noise nuisance is defined as low priority).
   3. Responding to non-urgent reports within 3 working days.
   4. Contacting the complainant every 10 working days while the case is live.
   5. Reporting safeguarding concerns to the relevant agencies.
   6. Use of noise monitoring equipment and the Noise App.
9. The resident first reported the noise nuisance to his landlord on 26 September 2024. He described the noise as low frequency and said it was disturbing his sleep. The same day the landlord opened a new ASB case, completed a risk assessment and updated the resident in line with its policy.
10. On 1 October the landlord advised the resident to download the Noise App and record the noise he was complaining of, in line with its policy. From 3 to 6 October 2024 the resident recorded and submitted over 30 recordings. On 7 October 2024 he contacted the landlord and asked if someone could attend his property to listen to the noise as the Noise App was unable to capture the low-frequency sound. Two female operatives of the landlord attended the resident’s property the following day. The landlord’s notes recorded the operatives could not hear any noise, but the resident could.
11. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property the same day and identified they had their television on an adjoining wall. The landlord’s notes recorded the neighbour showed it a weekly usage report for the television, which showed the device was used for less than an hour and only on a couple of days.
12. The resident continued to submit recordings via the Noise App. The landlord’s notes confirm no noise could be heard on any of the recordings. On 16 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report his neighbour had been gaming and his sub-woofer had been on all night. The resident also said that “older women”, including his wife, could not hear the noise.
13. The landlord sent 2 operatives to the property on the same day, 1 of whom was male. The landlord’s notes recorded the resident could hear the neighbour gaming upon its arrival, but neither operative could hear any noise. The notes also recorded:
    1. The resident had downloaded an alternative app to capture the noise. The landlord advised him to use the Noise App as this was the correct way to record the noise.
    2. The resident advised he had a cochlear implant. One of the operatives queried whether the implant could be checked to rule out any interference.
    3. Mediation was offered to the resident, but this was later declined.
    4. The resident was informed if there was no evidence of noise the case would be closed.
14. The Noise App is a recognised means of securing evidence of noise nuisance that can be used in court if necessary and is specifically referred to in the landlord’s policy. It was reasonable of the landlord to advise the resident to revert back to the Noise App.
15. Both operatives could not hear the noise, which the resident said was taking place at the time. The operative’s suggestion for the resident to have his cochlear implant checked was a reasonable suggestion to make in the circumstances. This was evidence of the landlord was taking his concerns seriously and taking a holistic approach to determine the cause of the noise nuisance.
16. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 October 2024. He said he was still experiencing the noise, and he supplied it with research suggesting the psychological damage low-frequency noise could have. The landlord arranged for Environmental Health to install noise monitoring equipment at the property on 29 October 2024. The equipment recorded for 4 days but no signs of noise nuisance were captured.
17. During contact with the landlord on 1 and 11 November 2024, the resident was upset and commented on taking his own life. On each occasion the landlord acted quickly, contacting police, submitting safeguarding referrals, and involving its in–house care and support team.
18. The landlord made a further visit to the resident’s property on 15 November 2024 and was unable to hear any noise. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property the same day and recorded there was no evidence of a subwoofer or anything that caused it concern. Following these visits, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it was unable to take action against the neighbour when there was no evidence of ASB. It also reiterated the further support options open to the resident via its in–house care and support team and the resident’s own GP.
19. Following the report from environmental health, the landlord reviewed the case and concluded there was insufficient evidence to take formal action against the alleged perpetrator. On or around 26 November 2024 the landlord closed the ASB case. Having considered the evidence provided, including the extent to which the landlord attempted to gather evidence of any potential noise nuisance, we consider this decision to be reasonable.
20. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 26 November 2024. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the distress the resident was experiencing, set out the actions it had taken to investigate the matter and explained why it was unable to take any further action under its ASB policy. Its responses were reasonable and appropriate, and demonstrated empathy towards the resident’s situation.
21. We acknowledge this is a complex case, which the resident has said has caused a significant amount of distress. We have noted that on occasion, the resident has said visitors to his property have also heard the noise. However, the landlord needs evidence to be able to take formal action against an alleged perpetrator of ASB. The evidence shows the landlord conducted a thorough investigation into the allegations made by the resident which was conducted in line with its policy. This included multiple visits to the resident’s and the neighbour’s properties, reviewing the recordings from the Noise App, and installing noise monitoring equipment. The evidence shows the landlord took appropriate action based on the evidence available to it.
22. The evidence also shows the landlord took steps to support the resident throughout the investigation. It referred the resident to its in–house tenancy support service, completed referrals to adult safeguarding, and updated the resident regularly in line with its ASB policy.
23. Taking all of this into account there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Orders and Recommendations

25. There are no orders or recommendations for the landlord to consider.