Sanctuary Housing Association (202411119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411119

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 October 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2016.
3. The resident is over 80 years of age. During the period of the complaint she had suicidal thoughts.
4. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in accommodation for residents over 55 years of age. Residents have use of communal facilities including a garden.
5. During June 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour was causing nuisance. She said there was too much noise and they were not using the communal areas as they should.
6. On 2 July 2024 we wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide a complaint response on the issues set out above.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2024. It set out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. It did not identify a failure of service and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
8. The resident replied on the same day, 12 July, to ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had not provided the support set out in its response and had failed to take action to address all the issues.
9. On 19 August 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It remained satisfied its response to the residents reports of nuisance was appropriate. However, it acknowledged a failure to escalate the stage 2 complaint in line with its service delivery timescales. It apologised and offered £100 for the inconvenience caused.

Events after the internal complaints process

10. The resident contacted us on 12 September 2024 because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said it had failed to act and the issues were ongoing.
11. During a call with us on 26 September 2025 the resident said the noise had stopped but the neighbour was currently targeting her with verbal abuse.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

12. During her conversation with us on 26 September 2025 the resident said the landlord had allowed her neighbour to put up trellis in the communal garden. There is no evidence this was raised by the resident as part of her original complaint therefore its response has not been assessed. This is in keeping with our approach which says we may not investigate complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.

13. The landlord’s Vulnerable Customer’s Procedure (vulnerability procedure) says it will take reasonable steps to tailor its services to the specific needs and concerns of its residents to deliver fair access and outcomes for all. Where it determines that a resident may be vulnerable it will assess if a wellbeing referral is needed.
14. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy says that where behaviour causes a nuisance or annoyance it will respond in a prompt and proportionate manner.
15. The landlord’s ASB Procedure says that when it receives a report of ASB it will complete section 2 of the vulnerability matrix assessment within 5 working days.
16. On 6 June 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour was creating noise “almost every day and most nights.” She said their visitors were shouting, screaming and running around in the property and communal areas. She said this was causing “a lot of distress to her” and that she’d recorded it on her phone.
17. The landlord’s records contain an entry dated 6 June 2024 which is headed “vulnerability assessment” however the assessment itself is blank. There’s no evidence an appropriate assessment was carried out in line with its ASB Procedure which was inappropriate.
18. During a conversation with the resident on 9 June 2024 the landlord asked if she would like to move to a self-contained bungalow which she declined. It was positive that the landlord considered a range of options to try to reduce the resident’s distress.
19. An ASB action sheet dated 10 June 2024 summarised the resident’s reports. It said they were about noise and the neighbour not using the communal pathway.
20. A file note dated 11 June 2024 set out the landlord’s visit to the resident. This included managing her expectations about action it could take in respect of noise from children. It also agreed that it would visit the neighbour to discuss the level of noise and use of the communal pathway. Further file notes show that this was actioned and the resident updated on 16 June 2024.
21. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. However, we have not seen a detailed file note of the landlord’s discussion with the neighbour which is a record keeping failure.
22. A file note dated 3 July 2024 said that the resident had approached its officer when on site on 1 July. She said the noise was “unbearable” and that she had video evidence. It records confirmed it reviewed the videos and did not identify any nuisance behaviour.
23. A file note dated 4 July 2024 said that the resident spoke to the landlord when it was on site that day. She said she was unhappy with the current level of noise in the communal area. Its stage 1 complaint response of 12 July said that during the discussion it had gone to the window closest to the communal gardens. Its view was that residents were having a conversation at a normal level.
24. The landlord’s records show that on 12 July 2024 it was put on notice that the resident had recently attempted suicide. It says it escalated the matter with the housing team to carry out a welfare check. There’s no evidence that this was actioned which was inappropriate.
25. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it carried out a vulnerability assessment to inform its ASB response. There’s also no evidence it considered making a wellbeing referral to support the resident in line with its vulnerability procedure. This demonstrated a lack of regard for the impact the situation had on the resident’s mental health which was inappropriate.
26. In our letter to the landlord of 23 July 2024 we said the resident’s stage 2 complaint included her neighbour having a cat which was not allowed. The evidence shows this was the first time the issue was raised with the landlord.
27. A file note dated 15 August 2024 set out a call from the resident. She reported that her neighbours were sunbathing in inappropriate clothing. She said she had photographs.
28. A further file note dated 19 August 2024 confirmed the landlord had seen the evidence. It had spoken to the neighbour(s) responsible who had said it would not happen again. The landlord’s response was proportionate in the circumstances and therefore in line with its ASB Policy.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 August 2024 confirmed it would visit the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns, to include her concerns about the cat. A file note dated 23 August confirmed the visit had taken place and the resident was happy with outcome.
30. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports. It reviewed her evidence and took proportionate action. However, it failed to consider her vulnerability and assess for any associated risk. It’s communication lacked empathy because it failed to recognise her lived experience. It’s response to the report about the neighbour’s misuse of the communal pathway is also unclear.
31. The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

32. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will acknowledge and log complaints within 5 working days. It will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
33. On 10 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report an incident of neighbour nuisance. On 1 July she called us to report that on 10 June she’d also raised a formal complaint. She said she had not received a response. We wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2024 requesting that it provide a reply by 23 July.
34. The landlord provided its response on 12 July 2024. It said it could not find any evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint on 10 June. It therefore concluded there was no failure of service. We have not seen any evidence that disputes its finding.
35. Also on 12 July 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord failed to adhere to its Complaints Policy because it failed to acknowledge and log the request. This caused inconvenience to the resident who contacted us on 23 July to request assistance.
36. We wrote to the landlord on 23 July 2024. It provided its response on 19 August. It acknowledged its failure and offered the resident £100 compensation to try to put things right.
37. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with our Remedies Guidance where the failure had adverse effect on the resident but had no permanent impact.
38. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and took proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of neighbour nuisance.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss any current concerns regarding her neighbour’s conduct. This should include but is not limited to their use of the communal pathway. It should write to the resident to set out a time bound action plan to address any ongoing issues of neighbour nuisance.
42. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

43. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £100 as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.