Sanctuary Housing Association (202335314)

Background

1. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbouring flat that adjoins hers for several years but regularly from February 2023. The resident reported repeated and prolonged episodes of noise nuisance that affected the use of her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord missed opportunities and there were communications failings during the ASB investigations, but it offered sufficient redress for these given the circumstances of the case.
   2. The landlord acknowledged learning from its failings and made regular efforts at partnership working.
   3. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable period at stage 1.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has described how the ASB impacted her health. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience caused by any landlord failings.

What we did investigate

8. It is not our role to find out whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. We assess how a landlord dealt with reports and whether it followed its policy and good practice. This investigation focusses on the reports raised from February 2023. There appears to have been a break in reports before this point. They then continued at a regular level so we will assess the landlord’s handling of the reports from this date onwards and through its complaint process.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate all reports of ASB. It will carry out victim risk assessments as soon as possible after the first report and regularly review them. It says it will work with reporters to agree an action plan. It will proactively support partnership working to prevent ASB and maintain agreed contact with reporters. It says it may take enforcement action where there is persistent or serious ASB, including warnings, notices, noise monitoring and proportionate legal action. It will follow a community trigger process where 3 reports of ASB occur in 6 months without adequate response, prompting a multi-agency review.
10. Despite regular reports of ASB from February 2023, the landlord did not open an ASB case until January 2024. It then opened 3 cases and cancelled them. Its records suggest it had active cases open from 10 January and 18 March 2024. This was a failing to comply with its own ASB policy and demonstrates poor record keeping. It is important that the landlord complies with its policy and keeps clear and accurate records of the contact it has with residents. Nevertheless, the landlord provided evidence it visited and issued tenancy warnings in February and March 2023. It also engaged with partner agencies quickly to provide support to the neighbour, which was reasonable and aligned with its policy.
11. In May 2023, the landlord’s records note that the resident said she was not complaining but felt better submitting the incident diaries. It was reasonable for the landlord not to take the continued reports of ASB as a complaint. The landlord acted on these reports and has evidenced that it made regular visits and issued appropriate warnings to the neighbour. It also proactively pursued partnership working as it recognised support needs. It evidences regular contact with social services and medical practitioners. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
12. The landlord offered the resident a move to a ground floor flat in the same building in June 2023. This was a reasonable offer to attempt to reduce the impact on the resident. It recognised that it was a complex case where other agencies may need to act first, lengthening the process. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, it is not clear whether the landlord clearly communicated the potential delays and complexity of the case to the resident at the time. This may have allowed her to fully consider the offer and limited the distress and inconvenience caused to her over the following year.
13. In November 2023, the landlord updated the resident but said GDPR rules limited what it could share. It explained that it was working on two fronts: wellbeing support and ASB enforcement. By February 2024, the landlord noted it might need to escalate its actions under its policy and then did so. It is positive that the landlord considered these steps, and we recognise the case was complex. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue to pursue other agency involvement before taking further enforcement action.
14. Though the landlord continued to take regular tenancy action, it did not clearly communicate this to the resident. It also did not conduct a risk assessment or create an action plan until 18 March 2024. This was a failing within its policy. This likely affected its approach to the ASB and how it co-ordinated communications and support for the resident. This caused her distress as she inevitably felt the landlord was not acting despite her regular reports.
15. On 4 March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it could not discuss the case in detail due to GDPR but confirmed it was taking action and working with other agencies. It was reasonable not to share personal information about the neighbour but could have shared an appropriately detailed update of the action it was taking alongside partnership agencies. This would have reassured the resident that it was taking her reports seriously and considering action to resolve the ASB.
16. The landlord appropriately apologised that it had not taken timely action in the past. It offered her a move with financial help towards the costs and confirmed it would keep her updated. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failure and made offers to mitigate the impact on the resident. However, it failed to make an action plan or carry out a risk assessment for a further 2 weeks. This was a failing under its ASB policy. It did not maintain its commitments to better communication. This caused further distress which was worsened by a feedback request to the resident saying it had closed her complaint.
17. The landlord internally noted learning after its stage 1 complaint. It said this had been an ongoing issue for 4 years and staff had not been confident in their handling. It recognised it had not provided consistent action or support. It recommended rolling out ASB training for staff and making easier to follow process documents to help set expectations and offer support. This was good practice and resolution focussed of the landlord to evaluate its response and identify improvements.
18. On 26 March 2024 it sent its stage 2 response. It appropriately apologised for the level of service and lack of communication. It said it was doing its utmost to resolve but couldn’t confirm a timescale. It reoffered the move it proposed at stage 1, recognising the resident’s reasons for refusal and acknowledging she should not feel she had to move. It also offered a week’s stay in a hotel for respite and the support of a Wellbeing Officer.
19. These were positive steps to mitigate the impact on the resident. It recognised its poor communication and appropriately apologised for the complaint closure wording in the feedback survey. It offered £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings. This is within a range that we would recommend for a failing that had an adverse impact on a resident so is proportionate to put right the distress and inconvenience the failings caused the resident over the previous year.
20. The landlord has not provided evidence that it fully considered all aspects of its ASB policy. It is unclear if it offered support to the resident in pursuing a community trigger application. We have recommended that the landlord confirm the current position with the resident, review whether it can take further steps under its policy and agree a communication plan. We have also recommended that that the landlord put in place the actions noted from its stage 1 learning.
21. Overall, we found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of reports of ASB. It acknowledged its failure to follow its ASB policy and demonstrated resolution focussed learning to put this right. It also acknowledged its failings in communication. It engaged proactively in partnership working and appropriately liaised with all relevant agencies.
22. While it could have done more to improve its communication, the landlord offered compensation of £600. This amount reflects the failures identified and aligns with our remedies guidance. The amount reflects the impact on the resident and in our opinion provided reasonable redress up to March 2024.

23. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
24. The resident raised a complaint on 9 January 2024 by writing to the managing director. The resident has stated she attempted regular complaints prior to this. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 January 2024. This was within the relevant timescales.
25. However, it did not provide a stage 1 response until 4 March 2024, after intervention from the Ombudsman in February 2024 on the resident’s behalf. This was an unreasonable delay, and the landlord did not recognise this failing in its complaint response. It stated it had visited her instead of providing a stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience in chasing other avenues to get a response to her complaint.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 March 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 March 2024. This is within the relevant timescales. It still did not acknowledge the delay in the stage 1 response. It was inappropriate not to identify this and put it right.
27. Though the landlord visited the resident in January 2024, it failed to provide a timely response at stage 1. It did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in turning to other agencies to complete the complaints process. On this basis, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the complaint. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect the resident, but do not have a permanent impact.

Learning

29. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code is essential for a fair and transparent service. Staff must identify when a customer raises a formal complaint and avoid misclassifying it as a service request or using early intervention measures when the complaint procedure clearly applies. Following the correct process ensures accountability, timely resolution, and compliance with regulatory standards. It also builds trust by showing the landlord takes concerns seriously and responds consistently. Every team member should understand the complaint policy and apply it.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. It is positive that the landlord maintained consistent and detailed records of ASB and took some action in response. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord explored all available avenues to resolve the issues. It should use good record-keeping to inform regular reviews and guide proportionate interventions. Without clear evidence of exhausting all options, the process risks appearing incomplete and ineffective. Records should not only document incidents but also support decision-making, ensuring timely escalation and comprehensive use of enforcement and support measures to protect victims and prevent escalation.

Communication

31. It is positive that the landlord maintained good communication with partner agencies and other involved parties, which supports effective multi-agency working. However, it did not sustain communication with the resident, leading her to believe that it was taking no action. The involvement of the resident in the early creation of an action plan with an agreed frequency of contact would have limited distress and inconvenience caused. Clear and regular updates are essential to reassure victims and witnesses, manage expectations, and maintain confidence in the process. While internal and external collaboration is important, it should not come at the expense of direct engagement with those affected. Future practice should ensure that communication plans include agreed update frequencies and proactive contact to demonstrate progress and support.