One Vision Housing Limited (202503628)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor 2 -bedroom property. He has diagnosed mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Request for re-housing.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-housing.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord failed to follow its policy and procedures when the resident initially reported his concerns. This resulted in an avoidable delays and distress and inconvenience for the resident.
5. The landlord failed to appropriately consider the residents vulnerabilities throughout the duration of the complaint.
6. It failed to create an effective action plan to manage the ASB case.
7. Although the landlord did acknowledge some of these failures it did not go far enough to put things right.

Re-housing

8. The landlord was under no obligation to offer the resident a management move. It explained this appropriately and advised the resident of his options.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord followed its complaint procedure and provided responses in line with its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. The resident has indicated that the ASB issues have impacted his health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
11. The resident first reported noise nuisance, domestic disturbances and cannabis use on 23 December 2024. The landlord’s policy states that it will acknowledge ASB reports within 1 working day, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this report.
12. The resident made a further report of noise nuisance (excessive music) on 8 January 2025, this was acknowledged in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures. The resident was informed that an ASB case would be opened, and he was given access to a noise recording app. The resident began to submit recordings on 18 January 2025, but the landlord did not open the ASB case until 2 February 2025. This was an unreasonable delay.
13. The landlord’s policy states that it will carry out a detailed interview with the complainant within 5 working days, during this interview it will complete a risk assessment and create an action plan. The resident was not provided with the risk assessment questionnaire until 7 February 2025. This was 21 working days after the acknowledgment of his report. The resident returned his completed questionnaire on 15 February 2025 but did not receive an action plan until 7 March 2025. This was a further unreasonable delay which exceed the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
14. The action plan failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities that he clearly disclosed in his risk assessment questionnaire. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident support or signposted him to relevant agencies. There is no evidence that it did this. It is noted that a safeguarding referral was made following the resident’s formal complaint, however, this should have been made as soon as the landlord became aware that the ASB was having a negative impact on the resident’s wellbeing. It was unreasonable that this action was only taken following the resident’s complaint.
15. In addition to the above, the action plan also failed to include any specific actions or timescales to remedy the noise disturbance. This was a missed opportunity.
16. Within its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately identified the failings outlined in paragraphs 11 – 15 above. It apologised to the resident and took some steps to put things right but didn’t go far enough to resolve the issues and address the inconvenience to the resident.
17. The records show that the resident submitted 49 noise recordings between January 2025 – July 2025, which he believed evidenced excessive music, screaming and shouting. He said that on occasions the music was so loud that he was unable to open his windows. The landlord reviewed the evidence the resident submitted and determined that it did not constitute ASB in accordance with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of this. For a landlord to take formal action regarding noise, such as written warnings, injunctions or eviction proceedings, the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged noise and behaviour.
18. While landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any additional investigations aside from consulting with the police. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to visit the alleged perpetrator to discuss the reports and to see if any measures could be taken to alleviate or reduce the disturbance. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to do this until July 2025, almost 7 months after the resident’s initial report.
19. In this case, the resident believed that the noise constituted a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that noise emitted from premises to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance constitutes a statutory nuisance. It states that where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to the landlord by a person living within its area, the landlord is to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint. Given the continuous nature and frequency of the noise nuisance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have involved the local authority earlier than 20 March 2025 or to have signposted the resident to them prior to receiving the formal complaint. Local authorities are responsible for determining if a nuisance is statutory or not. They often have limited resources and there can be a waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. The landlord’s failure to do this at the earliest opportunity resulted in further delays.
20. The landlord made a referral to its mediation service in March 2025. This was a positive action and demonstrated a commitment to trying to resolve the issue. The evidence shows that the mediation referral was closed on 7 May 2025 due to a lack of engagement from both parties. However, it is noted that the resident continued to report noise disturbances until mid July 2025, so the matter had not been resolved.
21. Our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
22. In this case the landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing him of the lessons it had learned from his complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor. However, it failed to acknowledge the detriment caused by the added delays involving the local authority and submitting the mediation referral. In addition, the level of compensation offered was disproportionately low given the number of failures identified and the fact that it did not reasonably consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact upon him.
23. At the time of this investigation the current position regarding the matter is unclear. However, it is evident that the resident continued to experience and report noise nuisance for several months after the stage 2 response was issued. An order has been in relation to this.
24. It is our opinion that the amount of £300 compensation would provide adequate redress for the failures identified. This is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

25. The landlord’s transfer policy states that it may use management transfers as a way to deal with housing management issues. This can include serious ASB or harassment that has been substantiated by the police or multiagency risk assessment.
26. In this case, the evidence provided to the landlord did not meet the criteria for a management transfer and there is no evidence that a move was supported by any other agency. While it is understandable that the resident was disappointed in this response it was a decision that the landlord was entitled to make.
27. The landlord clearly explained its position to the resident and gave him appropriate advice on the other options available to him, including, joining the property register. The landlord also gave the resident the opportunity to provide additional supporting evidence and said that this would be considered. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.

28. The landlord’s policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1 a response will be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement and 20 working days at stage 2.
29. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its policy.

Learning

General

30. The landlord appropriately used the complaints process to identify some of the initial failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In doing so it demonstrated that it had taken some learning.
31. In this case it is of particular importance that the landlord learns from its failure to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It is vital in ASB cases that risk assessments are carried out at the earliest opportunity and that the information disclosed in them is used to implement effective action plans.

Communication and record-keeping

32. The landlord’s communication following the resident’s initial report of ASB was poor. However, it is positive to see that this did improve during the complaints process. The evidence shows that the landlord kept in contact with the resident via email and reviewed all noise app submissions in a timely manner.
33. On the whole, the landlord’s record keeping was adequate. It demonstrated that it accurately recorded the dates and times of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances and its communications with him regarding the matter.