Platform Housing Group Limited (202429868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429868

Platform Housing Group Limited

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:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), noise disturbance and drug use.
2. Request for a management transfer.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom flat, with her son since 2014 and has an assured tenancy. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has explained she has Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and has been dealing with some mental health issues.
The resident has reported ASB issues for many years and she had made a previous complaint to the landlord about this. The landlord’s original ASB investigation was closed down in December 2023.
On 12 May 2024, the resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour, who lived in the flat below her allowed her son to bully her and her son. She also said the neighbour smoked cannabis and played loud music. She felt the landlord had not dealt with her ASB concerns properly and it was affecting her studies, so she wanted to move. It opened a new ASB investigation on 21 May 2024 having received the complaint.
The resident was told the person responding to the complaint was on leave until 4 June 2024. On 6 June 2024, the landlord explained it would need a further 10 working days (until 20 June 2024) to provide its response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 18 June 2024, and the complaint was not upheld. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 July 2024, and she was initially told to expect a response by 6 August 2024. However, the landlord explained it needed more time to investigate the complaint and said it would respond by 3 September 2024.
The stage 2 response was sent on 22 August 2024. It addressed the resident’s complaint and set out the steps it had taken to deal with her concerns. It concluded there was no failure in its service.
The resident has told us the ASB is ongoing and to resolve her concerns, the landlord should take more robust action against the neighbour and grant her a managed move.

Scope of investigation

In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues that are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made. During the complaints process, the resident has referred to the landlord not giving verbal and written warnings to the neighbour over the years. These comments date back to the resident’s prior complaint, that does not form part of this investigation. While earlier reports of issues have provided important context to the current complaint, it is apparent that matters escalated again around May 2024 when the complaint that has been referred to us was made to the landlord. This investigation is therefore focused on events from May 2024 onwards. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s reports of ASB, noise disturbance and drug use

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will initially assess whether someone is a repeat victim of ASB and an action plan would normally be agreed with a resident, taking in to account any vulnerabilities. It goes on to say further action plans may be needed until case closure. It also says the landlord will make referrals or signpost to support agencies where appropriate and available. In addition, any action will be reasonable and proportionate, and may include non-legal remedies such as visits, mediation or warning letters. Cases will remain open and under review until all outstanding actions agreed as part of the action plan or subsequent reviews have been completed.
The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint 6 working days after it was made. Therefore, it missed the 3 working day target as set out in its ASB policy. However, it did reassure the resident that the staff member she wanted investigating her concerns would be doing so. When the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, she said her recent report of ASB should not have been treated as a new issue. However, the landlord’s previous ASB case had been closed, and it had also investigated an earlier complaint linked to ASB. Therefore, as it had concluded its earlier investigation, it was appropriate that it opened a new ASB case when further issues were reported later.
The incident reported by the resident in May 2024 related to the neighbour and her son causing issues while the resident was outside. The resident said the matter had been reported to the police and she was going to draft a statement. The landlord completed an action plan at that time, as per its ASB policy, which said a neighbourhood officer would liaise with the police and discuss the issues with the neighbour. The resident was asked to continue reporting any issues that occurred but it was noted the neighbour had made counter allegations, but said they were open to try mediation in order to try and resolve matters.
The landlord contacted the police the same day acknowledging that both the resident and neighbour had made reports, and asked what action if any, was being taken. It was told by the police that the resident had been given 3 options. The police could take no further action, speak to the neighbour informally or the resident could make a statement and they would speak to the neighbour formally. However, the police said it was unlikely matters would be taken further. The landlord said it would arrange for a joint visit with the police.
A visit was arranged for 10 June 2024 and the resident was asked how she was. The landlord was told there had been no further incidents, but she still felt uncomfortable. The resident explained another neighbour had witnessed the incident that took place outside and other neighbours were affected by the ASB but would not come forward. The landlord noted this, but without reports from other people, it was understandably limited in the action it could take. The resident explained the neighbour was playing loud music less often, but it was still happening a couple of times a week which she found too much. She had been advised to use a noise app to make recordings, but she had difficulty doing this due to the age of her phone. The landlord suggested mediation, which was in line with its ASB policy but the resident was unwilling to take part, as she felt the neighbour may use it as an opportunity to intimidate her, something she has reiterated to us. She asked the landlord to not suggest it again.
The resident’s email escalating her complaint at stage 2 shows she had been told by the landlord that she could also report noise nuisance to the local council’s Environmental Health team. However, she explained that would mean she had to provide 2 weeks of recent evidence in order to have a case opened and then at least a month of evidence preceding that in order for action to be taken. Even then, it may only send a letter and the neighbour would be aware that evidence was being collected, so may alter her behaviour.
While the resident’s concern over mediation and reporting her concerns to Environmental Health are noted, the landlord’s ASB policy is clear that reasonable and proportionate steps should be taken in the first instance. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to make these suggestions, so the noise level could be assessed and hopefully a resolution could be agreed amicably.
The resident made further reports to the landlord about the neighbour’s behaviour. On 10 July 2024 she reported cannabis being used and loud noises being made and sent in recordings in support of her allegations. The landlord did visit the neighbour with the police on 19 July 2024. The neighbour refuted the allegations and said the complaints were malicious. The landlord explained it had an obligation to investigate reports of ASB as per its policy, but the police decided not to take any further action at that time. The neighbour again said they would take part in mediation, but understood the resident was unlikely to agree to that.
The landlord updated the resident following the visit with the neighbour, and made her aware of its position, and that although it understood her concerns, mediation was still available as an option. It also made enquiries with Environmental Health, to see if there was already an open case. Environmental Health explained a case had been opened in the past and warning letters had been sent, but the neighbour claimed the complaint was malicious. It acknowledged the resident had sent in evidence in the past but said it did not meet the threshold to be a statutory noise nuisance, so the case was closed in June 2023. As the resident had reported further issues with noise since that time, the landlord rightly advised the resident to record any new incidents of noise and notify Environmental Health, as it may be sufficient to warrant the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
On 22 August 2024 the resident told the landlord she felt it had had substantial evidence of ASB, including drug use and noise nuisance. She said when a member of its staff spoke with her they had agreed the ASB had been going on a long time and had impacted her and her son a lot. She said they had told her it should not have been recorded as a new instance and her son’s mental health and well-being has not been appropriately considered in response to her request for a managed move. These comments were noted but the landlord’s overall view was there was not enough evidence to uphold the claims made. While the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s position, it had attempted to resolve matters amicably, but could not take more formal action if it did not feel the evidence provided was strong enough.
The landlord suggested on 10 September 2024, that it visit the resident to discuss her concerns and collate more information, however the resident said she saw no need for a visit. She explained she had stopped collating evidence as she had been told in the past it was insufficient and she did not think recording volatile arguments would help the situation. She said she had not been using the noise app as her phone did not work well with it, so she had been sending recordings instead, but she had been told the noise was not loud enough. She commented she had reported drug use to the landlord and police but no action had been taken. She accepted she had not sought help from other agencies but said she saw “it as a waste of my time and energy going forward because I have just done all of this for several years and will just be told every time that there isn’t enough evidence and [the neighbour] denies it”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on 8 October 2024 and as she was having difficulty recording noise, it suggested if there was a noise disturbance during office hours she let it know. If a neighbourhood officer was available, they would attend to witness the incident and record evidence. It again encouraged her to report any noise incidents to Environmental Health as this may result in it installing noise monitoring equipment.
It is not our role to determine whether there has been ASB or not, it is only to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably and complied with its obligations. Aside from a brief delay recording the ASB in May 2024, which caused no detriment, the landlord has taken a number of steps in response to the reports of ASB which are in line with its ASB policy. It has:
1. Completed action plans and shared these with the resident.
2. Advised her to use the noise app to make recordings and reviewed those submitted.
3. Liaised with Environmental Health and encouraged the resident to also make reports to it, as it may be able to fit noise monitoring equipment.
4. Offered to attend and collate evidence when noise reports were made.
5. Asked her to keep incident diaries.
6. Liaised with the police over reports of ASB and drug use.
7. Offered support for the resident’s mental health.
8. Offered mediation and help from other agencies.
9. Written to the neighbour about the alleged behaviour.
10. Visited both the resident and neighbour to discuss the issues.
11. Checked in with the resident to see if there had been any further incidents.
12. Offered to liaise with any health or support worker the resident may have.
The landlord proactively managed the ASB case from May 2024 and liaised with other agencies, as per its ASB policy. However, it explained it was limited in what it could do, based on the evidence provided. This led to it telling the resident on 8 October 2024, that if no evidence was provided in the next 28 days, the case would be closed.
The resident responded on 11 October 2024 by reiterating that she felt she had provided sufficient evidence to support her claims and the issues were ongoing. The landlord has supplied copies of action plans it completed after that, which shows it did then keep the ASB case active. In addition, from November 2024 the resident reported several more incidents of ASB which the landlord recorded. It was agreed the resident was to continue to report and evidence any issue she had with her neighbour, and the landlord would continue to liaise with the resident, neighbour and police and review the evidence once received.
With both parties having done that, on 23 January 2025 the landlord told the resident the evidence it had reviewed was not sufficient to warrant a breach of tenancy by the neighbour. It felt it had taken reasonable action in addressing the ASB, but the police had received no further reports and it had a responsibility to manage her expectations. It said without sufficient evidence, it was limited in the actions it could take, so it was going to close the case. As all outstanding actions were completed and the landlord had explained its position, it was reasonable, as per its ASB policy, to propose closing the case.
The resident has said she has been through a difficult time, and the strength of feeling she has over what has happened, has been noted. However, the landlord had to balance investigating the allegations as well as the neighbour making counter allegations against the resident. It took a number of steps to address matters informally, which was reasonable as there was not enough evidence to support formal action against the neighbour. Therefore, the landlord complied with its obligations under its ASB policy and there has been no maladministration.
The resident has explained that she continues to have problems with her neighbour and if that is the case, she should ensure she keeps a log and reports them to the landlord. This allows it to collate the information provided and continually assess what action, if any, should be taken. Any criminal matters should also still be reported to the police. While the landlord may not have had enough evidence to date to go further than it already has to try and address the issues raised, that may not always be the case.

Resident’s request for a management transfer

Having reported ASB, the resident made it clear she wanted to move and she informed the landlord on 28 May 2024 that she had applied to be re-banded in the hope it would increase her chances of finding a new property, as she would have higher priority for re-housing . She had also applied for help from a housing agency and registered for Home Swapper. She asked the landlord for any help it could give her, in order to facilitate a move.
The landlord’s lettings policy says a managed move can be considered for someone with an urgent and exceptional need if they need an adapted home due to illness or disability. A managed move may also be considered in exceptional circumstances, for example where there has been domestic abuse, racial abuse, threat to life or serious risk of harm.
On 11 June 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that at that time she did not qualify for a managed move. The resident said she was looking to obtain a medical letter in support of a managed move and the landlord confirmed it was important to collate medical evidence, otherwise she would not qualify. The landlord therefore correctly managed the resident’s expectations. While it was unable to assist with a managed move at that time, it did signpost her to the local council for additional support, if she wanted to discuss further housing options, which was in line with its ASB policy.
The resident continued to look for properties using Home Swapper but was unsuccessful. However, on 9 January 2025 she informed the landlord she had been offered another property, but she was not sure whether to take it due to its size. Up to that point, the landlord had been liaising with the resident regularly and had been kept informed that she had a number of health conditions. At that time, the landlord told the resident consideration could be given to a managed move under medical criteria. However, it reminded her there were strict criteria for that. She would need to have an urgent medical or disability need which meant she could not access or continue to occupy her current property. This would need to be confirmed by medical professionals and an assessment provided by an occupational therapist. The resident was advised to gather and submit medical information and any supporting documentation she had and if the evidence was sufficient, it could begin the management move process.
We are satisfied the landlord correctly applied its lettings policy and provided the resident with advice and support regarding a possible management transfer. Therefore, there has been no maladministration. No evidence has been provided to show the resident submitted the required medical evidence to the landlord, in support of a management transfer. However, in the event she does, the landlord can then consider her application.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB, noise disturbance and drug use.
2. Request for a management transfer.