Accent Housing Limited (202327294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327294

Accent Housing Limited

26 September 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 handing of the resident’s:
1. Reports of their neighbour’s antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of overgrown vegetation and a rat infestation in neighbours’ gardens.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first-floor maisonette and the tenancy started on 16 November 2018. The resident explains that has recently been preliminarily diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome which was triggered by long-term stress.
The resident has been reporting issues about noise from her downstairs neighbour since soon after she moved into the property. The issues worsened in 2023, and she raised a complaint on 24 July 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She also raised concerns about the state of the neighbours’ gardens and a rat infestation. She asked the landlord to move her.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024, which said it:
1. Apologised that the resident did not get a manager call back as requested.
2. That not all of the communication about the issue with linked to the ASB case which prevented it from effectively monitoring the case.
3. Would ask the neighbour’s next of kin to clear the garden, as he was not currently home and if they didn’t respond, it would complete the work and recharge the cost.
4. Would attend the other ground floor neighbour’s property and request the garden is cleared.
5. Had asked the surveyor to provide the resident with an update on the follow up actions for pest control.
6. Had asked the housing manager to arrange a joint visit to the area with the police in response to concerns about drug dealing.
7. Would arrange a multi-agency meeting to discuss concerns regarding her neighbour.
8. Would continue to monitor a different neighbour in line with its procedure as there had been historic ASB reported by the resident.
9. Had determined that the resident does not currently meet the criteria for a management moved and advised her to apply to the Local Authority to rejoin the housing register or to explore a mutual exchange.
10. Offered £50 in compensation for not responding to her request to speak to a manager.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 February 2024. She did not feel that the landlord was doing enough about her ASB reports. She brought up concerns about the neighbour the complaint was about but also historic issues with other neighbours. The resident proposed a resolution to move into a vacant bungalow in the street.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 28 March 2024 and responded on 17 April 2024. It said that:
1. The neighbour has complex vulnerabilities which the resident is aware of.
2. It had been working with partner agencies on the complex case to deal with the neighbour’s behaviour.
3. It had kept in communication with the resident and updated her when able to but acknowledged that the communication could have been more frequent.
4. It had classed many of the resident’s reports about the neighbour as ASB, but that did not fit as most of the behaviour is related to his vulnerabilities and is not intentional.
5. It had identified additional training for staff around classifying complaints as ASB and how it communicates its approach to customers. It said training would over the next two months.
6. It was not an option to move the resident to the specific property she requested as it was not vacant.
7. It was unable to consider moving the resident as she did not meet the criteria for a managed moved.
8. It had asked the surveyor to inspect the home to consider additional measures to minimise noise transference.
9. It apologised for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint and offered £100 for this error.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she does not believe the landlord has done enough to support her in regard to the ASB, that it was impacting her health and work, and that she wants the landlord to move her to a nearby residence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that the stress caused by the neighbour’s behaviour has impacted her health. While this Service is an alternative to court, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman can assess the appropriateness and adequacy of a landlord’s response to reports of ASB. We cannot establish whether an individual party is responsible for ASB. As a result, we cannot tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. Similarly, we will not make an order for a landlord to move a resident to another property as we cannot fairly assess the competing priorities of any other applicants.

The landlord’s handling of reports of the neighbour’s ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work in partnership with the police, local authorities, and other agencies, and will provide support to its residents. In responding to reports of ASB, it will assess the risk of the situation, interview the victim and perpetrator, come up with an action plan, and communicate with all parties.
The landlord’s allocations and letting policy says that customers who request to be transferred to another property must be able to demonstrate the urgency of the need to be moved and why a mutual exchange may not be a suitable option for them. Transfers are only granted in exceptional circumstances and need to be approved by the Allocations and Lettings Manager, Head of Housing Services, and Director of Housing Services.
The evidence shows that the landlord has raised ASB cases in response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour over time. In late 2022/early 2023 the resident’s reports that the neighbour’s behaviours became more frequent and intense. The resident was asked to submit noise app recordings and keep diary sheets.
There is not a dispute that the neighbour has complex mental health needs and has been hospitalised several times because of this. This information has previously been shared with the resident. The noises that the neighbour makes at times occurs at all times of day and the neighbour is often up overnight. The resident has explained this interferes with her sleep and causes her stress. He also goes outside overnight when he is in an agitated state and makes noise such as moving bins around and revving his motorbike. He has stared at and shouted toward the resident’s front door. He’s made a verbal threat to a different neighbour in the past, but not to the resident in this complaint.
There has been a cycle that has occurred several times over a period of years with the neighbour’s behaviour becoming increasingly concerning and then he is hospitalised because of this. He receives community support when he returns home.
In its complaint responses, the landlord has acknowledged that classing most of the neighbour’s behaviour as ASB doesn’t fit well into that criteria as they are related to the neighbour’s vulnerabilities rather than his trying to cause a nuisance. What this has meant is that the ASB policy doesn’t always fit the circumstances. For example, when new housing officer took over in June 2023, they listened to the noise app recordings the resident provided and said they weren’t at the level to meet the ASB criteria so there was nothing further they could do. This was a failing by the landlord as it did not consider what other action outside of its ASB process it could take.
Had the new housing officer reviewed the history and how the neighbour’s behaviours were impacting the resident, outside of just applying the ASB policy, she may have recognised that a different approach was needed in order to support both the neighbour and the resident. Instead, the resident continued to raise concerns and a complaint because she felt that she was being dismissed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified a need to train staff around classifying complaints as ASB and how it communicates its approach with customers. It is a positive step that the landlord identified a need for learning in this area.
It is recognised that the cycle of the neighbour’s behaviour has caused distress to the resident over time, and we accept how that could have impacted her peaceful enjoyment of her home. Our role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns were fair, reasonable and in line with policies or procedures.
From September 2023 through April 2024, the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord:
1. Spoke to the resident and the neighbour about the concerns.
2. Offered mediation.
3. Completed a risk assessment.
4. Maintained regular contact with the council’s mental health team, the police, and others involved in supporting the neighbour.
5. Communicated regularly with the neighbour about the concerns and what behaviour it expected from him so as to not negatively impact his neighbours.
6. Considered whether it could take any action against the neighbour’s tenancy.
7. Kept the resident updated, although it admitted there could have been more frequent contact. There were things the landlord was not able to share with the resident about the neighbour and some of its actions.
8. Considered whether the resident meant the criteria for a managed move. When it determined she didn’t, it signposted her to the local authority housing register and mutual exchange.
9. Offered to inspect the resident’s property to see if there was anything it could do about noise transference. The resident did not take this offer up and pointed out some of the noise came from outside of the property.
10. Provided information to the resident about how to contact the council’s occupational health department.
In our view, the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour. It did what it was fair and reasonable within its role, policies, and procedures to address the overall concerns.
Although we find the that the landlord acted in line with its procedures and obligations in how it responded overall, there were some failures including:
1. The lack of sharing information when there was a change in housing officers, which caused an initial response from the new housing officer that was not helpful. This made the resident feel as if the landlord did not understand the impact the situation had on her and it delayed its response to addressing the concerns.
2. Periods where the landlord did not link all of the communication to the ASB case. It acknowledged that this caused a period of not effectively monitoring the case.
3. Not providing a copy of formal action plan to the resident about what steps it would take in what timeframe, as is part of its policy. An action plan would have allowed the landlord to outline what actions it would take and agreed timescales for actions and updates. This was a missed opportunity to effectively manage the resident’s expectations during the period the ASB case was open.
Because of the above failures, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s behaviour. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident, we will order the landlord to provide £150 in compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance. We will also ask the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
There is not currently an ASB case open, and the resident has told us that she hasn’t been kept up overnight the past few months, despite the resident being at home. She is worried what may happen in the future. The resident has shared that she was been working with a doctor and has received a preliminary diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome which is related to ongoing stress. We will include a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to update her vulnerabilities on its records. This will ensure the landlord has this information to consider this if there are further ASB reports or other concerns from the resident going forward.

The landlord’s handling of reports of overgrown vegetation and rat infestation in neighbours’ gardens

The neighbour reported her concerns about the neighbours’ gardens contributing to the rat infestation at the property. The landlord said it would contact the family of her downstairs neighbour (as he was hospitalised) and ask them to clear the garden by a certain date. It said that if the garden wasn’t cleared, it would clear the garden and charge this cost back to the neighbour. The landlord also said it would attend the other downstairs neighbour and request the garden is cleared. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
The neighbour’s family did not clear the garden by the date the landlord gave, and it did not then attend and clear the garden as was planned. This was not reasonable as the landlord did not follow through with what it said it would do. This caused the garden to remain in an overgrown state for a period of over a year. This past summer there has been considerable progress on clearing the garden as the neighbour’s mother has been working on this.
While there has been progress on the state of the neighbour’s garden, there is a bush that has grown tall enough to block part of the resident’s window. The resident has reported this to the landlord, and it said it would address the issue. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord inform the resident of its plan to deal with the bush that is blocking the resident’s window, so that she knows what to expect.
The rat infestation was in both of the downstairs neighbours’ gardens as well as in the communal area of the property. The evidence shows the landlord did address the rat infestation by sending someone out and taking steps, such as removing an unused shed from the communal area and setting down traps. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to address the problem and the resident confirmed there was a period where she did not see rats.
The resident has told us that she has recently seen rats again and questions whether there has been ongoing monitoring. She pointed out that part of her service charge is for pest control and it would be reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation and respond to any new concerns of rats. We will recommend the landlord inform the resident of its plan to address the rats currently on the property.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord not following through with clearing the neighbour’s garden when it said it would. This caused further inconvenience as the resident continued to chase this issue and trust was lost with the landlord as it didn’t follow through with what it promised to do. To recognise this service failing and the impact to the resident, we will order the landlord to provide £50 in compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond within 10 working days at Stage 1, and respond within 20 working days at Stage 2.
The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour on 24 July 2023. This was not responded to, so she raised a further complaint on 23 October 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to take the time to raise the same complaint twice.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024, which is approximately 5 months from when the complaint was raised. This was after this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident. This is an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait.
The resident escalated her complaint to Stage 2 on 8 January 2024. The landlord acknowledges it made an error and did not log this correctly. This meant she had to chase up the complaint response, which was frustrating and inconvenient. This Service also contacted the landlord to ask it to respond. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024.
In its two responses, the landlord apologised and offered £150 for its complaint handling failures.
1. £50 for not responding to her request for a manager to call her about her complaint.
2. £100 for the late stage 2 response.
It is positive that the landlord apologised and offered compensation but, in our view, it has not acknowledged the failure in not raising the stage 1 complaint in July 2024, causing a 5-month delay. It was not reasonable that this Service had to contact the landlord at both stages before it responded.
Due to the above and because landlord has not acknowledged all of its failures, we find there has been service failure in response to the resident’s complaint.
In its complaint responses, the landlord has offered a total of £150 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. In our view, this amount is not high enough to recognise the significant delays in the landlord’s responding to the complaint at both stages, its failure to recognise the delay at stage 1, and the impact this had on the resident. Therefore, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation (including the £150 already offered) for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s ASB.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown vegetation and a rat infestation in the neighbour’s gardens.
3. Complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures described in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 (including the £150 already offered) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This is made up of:
  1. £150 for its handling of the ASB case.
  2. £50 for its handling of concerns about the overgrown garden and rat infestation.
  3. £200 for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure her vulnerabilities are updated on its records.
It is recommended that the landlord inform the resident of its plan to address the bush that is blocking the resident’s window.
It is recommended that the landlord inform the resident of its plan to address the rats on the property.