Hightown Housing Association Limited (202434525)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434525

Hightown Housing Association Limited

17 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for a management move.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed ground floor flat within a 4-story block of similar flats. He lives alone but his partner and children regularly stay with him.
The resident has disclosed mental health conditions to the landlord. He explained that due to these issues he struggles with phone calls and home visits and prefers contact by email.
On 14 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that he was unhappy with its response to his reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour (Complaint 1). He also said he had reported the smell of cannabis but did not know which property the smell was coming from. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 April 2023 and said it had logged an “early stage complaint”.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it had logged an early stage complaint and would respond by 14 June 2023. It has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its response to this complaint.
On 24 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint (Complaint 2). He said he had been reporting noise issues from his upstairs neighbour since September 2022. He also said the landlord had not provided him with any updates or taken any action and the issue was impacting his health.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 2 on 14 August 2023. It said:
1. It had offered to carry out a home visit to carry out a complainant interview. The resident had declined due to his mental health.
2. Had it carried out the interview it would have provided advice and information, discussed next steps, and agreed an action plan. This would have improved communication in this case.
3. Its ASB investigations were ongoing.
4. It acknowledged “shortcomings” in the service provided and its lack of communication. It apologised for this.
5. It said the housing offer would update him every 2 weeks by email.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 on 19 September 2023. He explained the landlord’s response had gone to his email spam folder and he had been struggling with his mental health. On 2 January 2024 the resident requested an update on the complaint. The landlord said that because he had not requested an escalation within its policy timeframe, he would need to raise a new stage 1 complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a new complaint (Complaint 3) on 28 March 2024. He said the housing officer was not responding to him and the ASB was ongoing. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time.
On 21 August 2024 the resident complained again via the landlord’s website (Complaint 4), following up by email on 30 August 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour, cannabis use by people in the area, and his request for a management move.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 4 on 20 September 2024 and said:
1. It had provided “little communication” in response to his reports of ASB.
2. It had allocated a new housing officer to investigate the ASB. They would agree an action plan with him.
3. It acknowledged his application for a management move and that he had provided medical evidence. It said it would update him when it had considered the application.
4. It offered £50 compensation for failings in its management of his reports of ASB.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 4 on 3 October 2024. He said he had had several housing officers since he first reported the ASB and all had failed to respond. The resident said the issue had had an impact on his mental health that his partner and children struggled to sleep due to the noise and so visited less often.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 4 on 20 November 2024. It said:
1. There had been a turnover in housing officers and this had impacted its communication with him.
2. His neighbour said they had installed carpets throughout the property. They also said they limited their children’s play due to the noise and the children were in bed by 8pm.
3. It would carry out a noise transference assessment.
4. It was unable to provide a management move. It had limited properties available and could only consider a management move as a last resort.
5. It offered him a further £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He states that he continues to experience noise nuisance from his neighbour and still wants a management move.

Assessment and findings

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

The resident stated in his communications with the landlord that he first reported ASB from his upstairs neighbour in September 2022. We have not seen evidence of these reports in the information provided by the landlord. It is not clear if this is because the landlord did not receive these reports or because it failed to keep adequate records. We are therefore unable to assess the handling of any reports prior to April 2023.
In the resident’s first complaint in April 2023 he stated he was experiencing noise nuisance from his neighbour. He described banging from people moving around the property and children running and jumping. He asked the landlord to ensure the neighbour installed appropriate flooring.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident will not cause or allow members of their household to cause a nuisance or annoyance to others in the neighbourhood. The landlord also operates ‘estate regulations’. These state that residents living in flats above the ground floor must not fit hard flooring as this can cause a noise nuisance to neighbours. The resident therefore reasonably expected the landlord to hold his neighbours to these terms.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will not categorise noise caused by daily living or children playing as ASB. However, given the impact on the resident and his concerns that the behaviour was intentional, it was reasonable that it recorded it as such.
Two months after the resident’s complaint, the landlord said it wanted to visit him to discuss his reports. The resident explained that due to his mental health concerns he preferred contact in writing as visits and phone calls worsened his anxiety. The landlord did not acknowledge this request and instead attempted to visit the resident.
In line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord must make reasonable adjustments for a known disability. Such a reasonable adjustment may include a preference for a particular method of communication due to a mental health condition. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered this as a reasonable adjustment. It therefore failed to give due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
There were several instances during its handling of this case when the landlord failed to adhere to the resident’s communication preferences. Instead it attended the resident’s property or contacted him by telephone. It should have considered the resident’s needs and adhered to his communication preferences. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
Statutory guidance issued alongside the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that landlords should assess the risk of harm to victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. The ASB toolkit for social landlord’s also recommends carrying out a risk assessment and action plan to prevent failures of service.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that on receipt of an ASB report it will interview the resident over the phone or in person. During this interview it will complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan including frequency of updates.
The landlord has stated that in this case it did not complete a risk assessment or action plan because the resident declined a home visit. We do not consider that the resident’s contact preferences prevented the landlord from adhering to good practice and its own procedure. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the risk assessment and agree an action plan by email. That it did not do so was a failing.
A formal action plan allows the landlord to outline what actions it (and the resident) will take and agree timescales for actions and updates. That it did not do this was a failure to adhere to its own procedure and a missed opportunity to effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
In August 2023 the resident made a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. By this time it had been 4 months since his initial complaint. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had carried out any investigations, taken any actions, or communicated with the resident during this period. This was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it had not offered the resident an alternative method to complete a complainant interview. It also accepted that its communications had not been adequate. However, following the response it again failed to offer an alternative method of completing the interview. It also failed to adhere to its agreement to update the resident fortnightly. Instead the evidence shows that, throughout the case, he continued to have to chase the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
In August 2023 the landlord visited the neighbour’s property. It told the resident that his neighbour did not have any floor coverings in place. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to request that the neighbour installed appropriate flooring in accordance with the estate regulations at that time. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This was unreasonable.
In December 2023 the landlord asked the resident if he had completed any noise diaries. In cases of noise nuisance it is reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident keep a record of the issue to evidence their reports. Without such evidence it will be difficult for the landlord to take action to address the noise. However, the landlord failed to advise the resident prior to this that it expected him to keep a diary. It would have been reasonable for it to do so.
We acknowledge that the resident told the landlord he did not wish to keep a noise diary as this would impact negatively on his mental health. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and that he wishes to protect his health. However, without evidence to support his reports the options available to the landlord may be limited.
The landlord also suggested referring the resident and his neighbour for mediation. As described in the ASB toolkit guidance for social landlords, mediation can be an extremely effective method of conflict resolution, especially in cases involving lower-level nuisance and lifestyle differences. This is because it brings together all parties and can prevent a dispute from escalating into a more serious disturbance. The resident declined the landlord’s offer as he explained that, due to a previous incident when his neighbour had been aggressive, he did not feel mediation was appropriate.
Also in December 2023 the landlord said it would carry out a noise test. Given the concerns about noise transference this was appropriate. It did not however carry out this testing until 17 weeks later. We have not been made aware of any circumstances that explain the delay in carrying out the testing. This was therefore an unreasonable delay.
The landlord noted following its noise testing that noise was travelling from the neighbour’s property to the resident’s and that it was causing vibrations and “shakes the flat walls”. The landlord said it had discussed the issue with both parties and would monitor the issue. Given the impact of the noise as witnessed by the landlord, it should reasonably have considered taking action at this time. That it did not was unreasonable.
In May 2024 the resident reported the smell of cannabis in the area. He stated he did not know where the smell was coming from. He repeated his concerns in his complaint of August 2024.
The landlord explained that as the resident did not know where the cannabis smell was coming from, it would write to all residents about the issue. Given there was no evidence to support more targeted action, this was reasonable.
In October 2024 the landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour who said he had installed carpets throughout the property. On several occasions the resident reported that the noise had worsened and asked the landlord to inspect his neighbour’s property. It took the landlord 10 weeks to carry out an inspection and discover that the resident’s neighbour had not installed carpets. This was an unreasonable delay.
Following its inspection of the neighbour’s property the landlord told the resident it was working with his neighbour to ensure they installed adequate flooring “as soon as possible”. The resident asked the landlord repeatedly to provide him with a timeframe for this however the landlord did not do so.
At the time of this report the resident reports that the noise nuisance continues and that the landlord has not taken any action to resolve the issue.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in relation to its communication failings in its handling of his ASB reports. Considering the length of time the resident has been reporting the issue and the detriment caused, we do not consider that this was proportionate. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in relation to its handling of this issue.
We have also ordered it to carry out a full review of the ASB taking into account the findings of this report. It should carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident including timescales for action that will be taken to address the ASB.
Overall, the landlord did not:
1. Adhere to the resident’s communication preferences.
2. Carry out a risk assessment or action plan in line with its policy and best practice.
3. Communicate effectively with the resident or respond to his requests for updates.
4. Inspect the neighbour’s property and carry out noise testing promptly.
5. Take action when it discovered the neighbour did not have appropriate flooring.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Request for a management move.

The resident first told the landlord he wanted to move in December 2023. At that time he said he wanted a transfer.
The landlord replied and advised that it did not operate an internal transfer list and signposted the resident to the local authority housing register and mutual exchange. Given the nature of the resident’s enquiry at that stage, this was an appropriate response.
In June 2024 the resident requested a management move on the grounds of his mental health issues. He mentioned that the ASB he was experiencing was worsening his mental health and provided a letter from his GP supporting his request.
The resident again asked the landlord for a management move in his stage 1 complaint at the end of August 2024 as it had not responded to his previous request. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy does not outline a timeframe for responding to management move requests. However, that it did not respond to the resident’s application for 2 months was an unreasonable delay. We have ordered the landlord to review its policy and to consider adding a timeframe for responding to applications. This will allow it to monitor its own performance and better manage residents’ expectations.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that most of its lettings will be made via agreements it hold with the local authority. However, it states that in some situations it may be necessary to carry out a managed move for a resident. It explains it will only do this as a “last resort where other action has failed…and there is a suitable property available”.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not complete a management transfer form for the resident until 7 weeks after his stage 1 complaint. This was a further unreasonable delay. The landlord refused the application because there were no suitable properties available. This was in line with its policy and was therefore reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord whether he could appeal its decision. The allocations policy states that residents have the right to appeal if they feel their application has not been dealt with reasonably or in accordance with its policy. However, the landlord merely repeated that it had refused his application and provided no details about his right to appeal. It therefore failed to adhere to its own policy and this was unreasonable.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the resident’s request for a management move within its complaint responses. Nor did it offer any compensation. We consider that the landlord should pay the resident £200 for time and trouble in relation to its failings. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident in relation to his request for an appeal.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s application. It also failed to adhere to its policy when it did not advise him of his right to appeal its decision. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Complaint handling.

The landlord considered the resident’s first complaint as an ‘early stage complaint’.
The landlord’s complaints procedure that was in place at the time includes an “early resolution step”. While this refers to being able to resolve complaints immediately, it also says that these should be investigated, resolved, and responded to in writing within 10 working days of their receipt. The policy then provides for 2 further stages beyond this.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code 2022) acknowledged that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. It says that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure. The Code 2022 sets out that a 2 stage complaints procedure is ideal and ensures the complaints process is not unduly long.
We note that the landlord has updated its complaints policy. The new policy is in accordance with the 2024 version of the Code which states that complaints processes must only have 2 stages.
It took the landlord 39 working days to respond to the early stage complaint. This greatly exceeded the timeframe in its procedure and unduly delayed the resident accessing the landlord’s formal process. This was inappropriate.
The landlord has not provided us with a copy of its early stage complaint response. We cannot therefore assess whether the response was reasonable.
It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to its handling of the resident’s complaint. That it did not do so was a failing.
It took the landlord 15 working days to respond to Complaint 2. This exceeds the 10 working day timeframe in its procedure and the Code 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response. This was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint policy says residents must escalate their complaint within 20 working days. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint 26 working days after its stage 1 complaint. While this does exceed the timeframe in the landlord’s policy, it would have been reasonable for it to exercise discretion as the resident explained a delay in receiving the complaint coupled with his mental ill-health had caused the delay.
The Code 2022 stated that if a landlord decided not to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate its reasons for this in writing along with the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision. The landlord failed to do so in this case. The landlord did not advise the resident that it had not escalated his complaint until January 2024, despite the resident chasing several times. It did not advise him of his right to approach the Ombudsman. This was inappropriate and delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
The landlord failed to acknowledge, log, or respond to Complaint 3. This was a serious complaint handling failure which further delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
It took the landlord 22 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 4. This was more than double the 10 working days timeframe outlined in its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response. This was unreasonable.
The Code states that the landlord must address all issues raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to do so in both its stage 1 and stage 2 response to Complaint 4 as it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about cannabis use. This was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 34 working days to provide a stage 2 response to Complaint 4. Again, this greatly exceeded the 20 working day timescale within the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord did not contact the resident to advise it would need an extension to its complaint timeframe. It did however apologise within its response however and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
We also note that the date on the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses to Complaint 4 differed to the date the letters were sent. We acknowledge that errors can be made however this could have caused confusion. The landlord should ensure that when responses are not sent on the day they were written, the dates on the letter are updated to reflect this.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unreasonably prolonged and not in line with the Code or its own policy. This caused the resident frustration and unnecessary time and trouble and delayed his access to the Ombudsman. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £300 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code was applied from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 comprising:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
  3. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  4. This is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord within its complaint responses.
Carry out a full review of the ASB case considering the findings of this investigation. It must also carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident – it should do this in writing to ensure it adheres to the resident’s contact preferences.
Write to the resident in relation to his request for an appeal of its decision not to provide a management move.