North Tyneside Council (202421454)

Decision
Case ID	202421454
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	North Tyneside Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives above a neighbour whose dog caused nuisance which she reported to the landlord. She also said the neighbour harassed her and mocked her mental health. The landlord’s handling of these issues was the subject of her complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
3. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s ASB reports

6. The landlord investigated the resident’s ASB reports in keeping with its ASB policy. It closed the case based on its assessment of the evidence, conversations with the resident and her neighbour, and considering police advice.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or respond in line with its complaint policy timeframe. It did not say if it upheld the resident’s complaints and it did not offer compensation to put things right.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints caused her. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 11 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Record keeping and Vulnerability We recommend the landlord reviews the resident’s circumstances to ensure its records are up to date with reference to any reported health issues or advocacy. The landlord should contact her to obtain further information if needed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 July 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint about ASB from the neighbour who lived below her. She said she provided evidence of ASB to the community protection team which included his dog barking and urinating. She said she suffered years of abuse from her neighbour who mocked her mental health which she said was a hate incident. She said the landlord had done nothing to address his behaviour but said she could move if she did not feel safe in her home. To put matters right she said she wanted to feel safe in her home and for staff to do their job.
22 July 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said it investigated 2 ASB reports she made the previous year, and discussed matters with her, the police, and its staff. It said the police had not taken any further action as they did not consider matters to be a hate crime. It said its staff acted appropriately by suggesting she could consider rehousing. It acknowledged she may have taken this the wrong way. It said it had not received any other reports of dog nuisance from neighbours and the evidence provided was not sufficient to take matters further, because she started an argument with her neighbour. It said it would close her ASB case but it did not say if it upheld her complaint.
26 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she recorded the argument with her neighbour and followed the landlord’s guidelines when speaking to him about his dog. She said she did not cause the insults she received and his language was discriminatory and a hate crime. She said the landlord was unwilling to keep her secure. She said she resented its assumption she took its rehousing comments the wrong way because she was upset, but it was the landlord’s policy to say this when someone was suffering abuse from another resident. She said her neighbour had a history of this type of behaviour and she had evidence of this. She asked how it could say there had been no other complaints when she knew there had been violence with other neighbours.
28 August 2024	The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It apologised she felt it accused her of starting an argument with her neighbour. It said no one witnessed the incident and it could only act on evidence. It explained the police took the lead on criminal matters but as they found no evidence of harassment it could not take any tenancy action. It said it would complete further investigations if she reported further incidents. It apologised that its suggestion for her to move home sounded insensitive. It said it had investigated dog barking issues from neighbour the previous year but it could only discuss the complaints she made. It offered mediation and said it would take proportionate action to all ASB reports. It referred her to the police to request an ASB case review if she remained dissatisfied. It explained the police coordinated ASB case reviews and would advise her if she met the criteria.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. To put things right she would like the landlord to investigate and respond to her ASB reports in line with its policy, and for it to retrain staff or terminate their employment.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident said the landlord’s handling of ASB affected her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of ASB since its final complaint response on 28 August 2024. If the resident is unhappy about the way the landlord responded to her reports of ASB she should raise a complaint with the landlord first and then to us if she remains unhappy with its final response.
10. We do not investigate the ASB itself, or complaints that concern the terms of employment or other personnel issues as these are matters for the landlord.

What we have investigated

11. The resident told us her neighbour dispute goes back 10 years. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged a history of issues but said it would address the issues she reported the previous year. We investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports and her complaint of 3 July 2024 from around 12 months before the complaint.
12. The resident reported nuisance from her neighbour’s dog on 14 August 2023. The landlord opened an ASB case and tried to discuss her concerns but was unable to contact her. It sent a warning letter to her neighbour, and a letter to the resident within 2 working days asking her to contact it to agree an action plan.
13. It emailed the resident again the next week asking her to make contact and said it would close the case if she did not respond. It spoke to her neighbour within a week about her concerns.
14. The landlord could not complete a risk assessment because the resident did not make contact. It spoke to her on 30 August 2023 and she told the landlord she had been at the hospital and believed the situation improved. It said she could access its noise App and offered to send her diary sheets. It said it would close the ASB case as the situation had improved. It should have sent a case closure letter to the resident confirming this.
15. The resident next reported ASB incidents in her complaint on 3 July 2024.She told the landlord her neighbour called her names and made comments which she believed was a hate crime. The landlord agreed to speak to her neighbour to mediate. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour the next day.
16. The landlord visited the resident with community protection staff on 8 July 2024 to discuss the neighbour dispute and review her evidence of ASB. It emailed the police the next day to ask if they had recorded any further reports of harassment between the neighbours. It also spoke to the resident’s neighbour following its meeting with the resident. The outcomes of this meeting and the police response to its information request is unclear because the landlord did not send us any records of this.
17. The resident did not report any further ASB before she escalated her complaint on 24 July 2024. The landlord visited her at home twice in August 2024 with a social worker, community nurse, and support worker. It explained the level of evidence it needed to take tenancy action against her neighbour to manage her expectations. It offered to refer both parties to mediation. It also agreed to consider installing a dividing fence to address the resident’s fear of the neighbour’s dog.
18. The landlord reviewed how it handled the resident’s ASB reports in its final complaint response. It acknowledged its rehousing advice might have caused distress but explained it wanted her to consider all her options. It explained the police led on criminal matters and had not found any evidence of a hate crime. The landlord was being reasonable when it said it could not take legal action without sufficient evidence. It told the resident she could ask the police to review the ASB case if she was concerned about its handling of her reports. It gave her the contact details and this option is still available to her.
19. The landlord recognised the neighbour dispute had been ongoing. There is no evidence it ignored the resident’s ASB concerns. It investigated, showed understanding of her situation, explained its findings, and confirmed it would look into any future reports. Its response was reasonable, proportionate, and in line with its policy. Overall, we found no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It also says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
21. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints. In its stage 1 response it said it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 8 July 2024, instead of 3 July 2024. It responded to her stage 1 complaint in 13 working days and her stage 2 complaint in 23 working days. The landlord’s responses were not in keeping with its complaint policy timescales. It did not say if it upheld her complaints.
22. The landlord’s complaint handling failings did not have a significant impact on the outcome for the resident. We found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 in line with our remedies guidance to put right the impact of its minor failings on her.

Learning

23. The landlord should send case closure letters to residents when closing ASB cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not provide us with evidence of the police response to its enquiry about the resident’s hate crime and harassment report. It did not keep a file note of its meeting at the resident’s property with community protection staff on 8 July 2024.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication was reasonable. It made more than one attempt to contact the resident to discuss her ASB reports and agreed actions with her on the telephone and in person. The landlord’s complaint responses were empathetic.