Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202328390)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328390

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

29 January 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 handling of anti–social behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 1 September 2019. The property in question is a 1-bed semi detached bungalow. The landlord’s records show that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. On 16 May 2023, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her reports of ASB by her neighbour. The landlord said after the meeting that it remained open to investigating but there were no active concerns that would be considered as ASB. The landlord agreed to remain in regular contact with the resident.
  3. The resident made multiple noise reports and other ASB related reports to the landlord following the meetings. The landlord attended the resident’s property on several occasions to discuss the reports with her and the neighbour. During this period, the resident and her partner requested clarification on a Community Protection Warning Notice (CPWN) issued to him in 2022.
  4. A stage 1 complaint was raised on 31 July 2023 following contact from the resident’s MP. This was in relation to the ongoing reports of noise nuisance, ASB and the landlord’s handling of them. The landlord held meetings with the resident, collected evidence she had obtained and arranged for use of the noise app as part of its investigation.
  5. On 7 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had reviewed the noise recordings provided but they would not constitute noise nuisance. It said that one of the neighbour’s sheds required relocation but the height of the rest of them would not be considered a breach of tenancy. It said it would discuss positioning of CCTV cameras with her neighbour but her reports of fires in the garden were not in breach of tenancy. It agreed to review any other relevant evidence but at that stage there was no evidence of ASB. 
  6. The resident made numerous reports of noise nuisance and requested landlord involvement in further disputes with her neighbour following the stage 1 response.
  7. After reviewing further evidence, the landlord provided a further response on 6 October 2023 and said it had not seen any evidence of ASB or noise nuisance from the neighbour. The resident’s MP escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 October 2023 as the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the stage 1 response.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 6 November 2023. It said that the evidence provided had been reviewed by somebody else but they agreed that there was no evidence of noise nuisance. It agreed that the neighbour’s shed was yet to be relocated but it said there was no evidence of any breaches of tenancy by the neighbour.
  9. The resident made numerous similar reports of noise and ASB about her neighbour following the complaint. The landlord then began liaising with the police, who had been called to the property on several occasions. In January 2024, a meeting was held between the resident, the landlord and the police. The landlord reiterated that previous reports of noise and ASB were not considered a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy.
  10. The resident informed the landlord that she would consider a property transfer as she was currently staying with her partner, rather than living at her property. To date, the resident has not obtained a property transfer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In reviewing this complaint, the Ombudsman will not determine whether there was ASB. Instead, we will focus on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable when investigating the resident’s reports. Within the resident’s complaint submission, they said that the desired outcome was for their neighbour to be evicted. This Service cannot order a landlord to take this kind of enforcement action.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

  1. When investigating reports of ASB, it is important for a landlord to ensure it maintains a good level of record keeping. This provides an accurate reflection of events that have contributed to the reports being raised and the actions taken to address them. Having reviewed the landlord’s records, it is clear that the landlord kept detailed records of the resident’s reports of ASB and all relevant correspondence during this period.
  2. After attending the resident’s property on 16 May 2023, the landlord wrote to her to acknowledge the issues that had been discussed. It provided a detailed account of the issues raised and explained its position on each. Where required, it provided details of the agreed actions in terms of recording and reporting any further instances of suspected ASB. The landlord also made an agreement to maintain regular contact with the resident to monitor the situation.
  3. Within the letter, the landlord explained that her neighbour had permission for the sheds in his garden and it did not consider these were restricting light to her garden. It said that most of her reports of noise nuisance would not be considered nuisance as they were “living noise.” However, it asked that she provide diary notes of any noise/shouting late at night as this could be considered a noise nuisance. Given the resident’s reports and the landlord’s findings, the actions proposed by the landlord were reasonable and it correctly set the resident’s expectations.  
  4. It is evident that following the meeting in May 2023, the landlord maintained the contact it agreed with resident. The landlord acted on the resident’s reports of both ASB and noise nuisance in a timely manner. In several instances, the landlord made itself available to attend the property the same day. In doing so, it was able to witness the reported behaviour and ascertain whether it would be considered ASB or a noise nuisance. Despite making several visits to the resident’s property, it did not record any examples of either.
  5. At stage 1, the landlord agreed to review evidence obtained by the resident and to carry out a further review of the neighbour’s sheds. During its investigation, it arranged access to the noise app for the resident to assist with recording evidence of her noise concerns. The landlord also met with the resident’s neighbour to discuss the ongoing reports in an attempt to reduce future instances. It confirmed the discussion in writing and provided a copy of its rules around any sheds at the property. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord as it sought to gather evidence and spoke with the alleged perpetrator.
  6. Within its complaint response on 7 September 2023, the landlord provided a detailed explanation of its investigation and its findings. It said that based on its visits to the property and the recordings made through the noise app, there was no evidence of noise nuisance. It advised that the height of her neighbour’s sheds was acceptable but one of them should be relocated further away from the property.
  7. The landlord said that controlled garden fires were acceptable and it had not received any evidence that these would be considered a nuisance. The landlord added that it was awaiting access to review evidence provided on a pen drive and it would provide a further response once it had done so. The outcome of its investigation was that there was no evidence of ASB, noise nuisance or any breaches of tenancy by her neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to review each of the resident’s ASB concerns and make evidence-based decisions to guide what actions it could take.
  8. The landlord continued to engage with the resident following its stage 1 response. It met with her again and confirmed the outcome of the meeting in writing. It reiterated the findings from its stage 1 complaint and said it would not be investigating the noise reports any further as it had not received evidence that would be considered noise nuisance. 
  9. After receiving reports of concerns around use of CCTV equipment by both the resident and her neighbour, the landlord met with both and reviewed the positioning of the cameras. Following these discussions, both the resident and her neighbour were reminded about acceptable positioning and use of CCTV cameras. This was again a balanced and reasonable approach on the part of the landlord.
  10. As agreed, the landlord followed up on the stage 1 response. It said that the evidence provided by the resident on a pen drive did not contain any evidence of noise nuisance. Following this response, the resident’s MP escalated the complaint to stage 2 as they were not satisfied with the initial review.
  11. The landlord therefore conducted a further review of the initial complaint, its response and the evidence provided. The landlord’s stage 2 response reiterated that there was no clear evidence of either ASB or noise nuisance from her neighbour. However, it did acknowledge that the neighbour’s shed had still not been moved.
  12. Following the complaint process, the resident raised further concerns with the landlord about her neighbour throwing “clay balls” and ice cubes at her and her property. The landlord acted appropriately in directing the resident’s reports of criminal behaviour to the police. The landlord then began liaising with the police as they had been called to the properties on a number of occasions. This was to discuss how to address the continued issues. Given the number of reports and the escalation in the severity of the reports, this was a reasonable direction for the landlord to take.  
  13. The resident continued to make numerous reports of noise nuisance. The landlord attended on several occasions but was unable to agree with the resident that the level of noise could be considered anything other than normal living noise.
  14. In January 2024, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident, her partner and the police. The landlord reiterated that normal living noise would not be considered noise nuisance and that it had checked the neighbour’s CCTV cameras and they were only recording his property. Landlord records noted that the police said that there was no case to follow up on and no evidence of any crimes being committed by their neighbour. They were asked not to “antagonise” their neighbour in future and to stop using 999 to report their issues with him. The police said that the landlord had conducted a thorough investigation and there was no evidence of any ASB, noise nuisance and no breaches of tenancy.
  15. Following this meeting, the resident requested a property transfer. Landlord records show that it provided significant support in arranging help with her ability to find a property exchange and ensured that it applied priority to her application based on medical vulnerability and it also added an extra priority point due to the ongoing ASB disputes.  
  16. Ultimately, it is clear that during the complaint period, the landlord acted quickly and reasonably when receiving reports of ASB and noise from the resident. It managed all reports thoroughly and consistently while keeping detailed records of the interactions. These show the considerations and actions taken to address the reports made by the resident throughout this period. Where required, the landlord provided appropriate responses to either the resident or her neighbour to explain its position, its decisions or any requests for action.
  17. Following the exhaustion of the internal complaint process and the escalation in the frequency and severity of these issues, the landlord engaged with external agencies to try and bring an end to the problems. Given that it was unlikely that the problems could be mutually resolved, the landlord offered its support to the resident in attempting to find a new property.
  18. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted appropriately throughout these disputes and provided a fair and consistent level of service to the resident. Having considered the landlord’s actions during this complaint period, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.