Citizen Housing Group Limited (202409244)

Background

1. The property is a first-floor flat that the resident has occupied since May 2021. In April 2023, the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbour. For the purposes of this report they will be referred to as “the neighbour”. The alleged ASB included threats of violence, banging, and slamming doors.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. It took a multi‑agency approach and applied formal action where appropriate. In addition, it clearly explained why the reported noise did not meet the threshold for noise nuisance and committed to checking that the building complied with relevant noise regulations.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint broadly aligned with its published timescales. The 1-day delay at stage 2 does not amount to an unreasonable failure.

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.

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

6. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred. It is for us to determine whether, in its response to reports of ASB, the landlord followed its relevant policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

What we did investigate

7. This investigation will focus on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint, as well as the issues considered by the landlord within its final response.
8. The landlord’s website states that it will respond to ASB reports within 1 working day for very serious incidents (such as violence or hate crime), 3 working days for serious cases (including drug misuse or verbal abuse), and 5 working days for other issues, such as noise or vehicle nuisance.
9. Its ASB and hate crime policy lists examples of ASB, including threats of violence and excessive noise (such as loud music audible outside the home). The policy notes that environmental health investigates noise nuisance and that not all noise amounts to ASB – for example, ordinary household sounds like footsteps or conversation.
10. The policy also sets out the landlord’s approach, stating that it will:
    1. challenge unacceptable behaviour
    2. make prompt contact with the reporting party
    3. agree an action plan
    4. intervene early, using measures such as mediation, warning letters, or acceptable behaviour contracts; and
    5. consider legal action, including ending a tenancy, where early interventions fail or where incidents are sufficiently serious.
11. On 6 March 2023, the resident reported that a neighbour had threatened him with a knife. The landlord contacted the resident the following day to discuss the incident and confirm whether it had been reported to the police, requesting the attending officers’ details. This response met the landlord’s ASB policy requirement to act within 1 working day for incidents classified as ‘very serious’.
12. On 4 and 11 April 2023, the resident reported an incident from 30 March 2023 in which the neighbour allegedly looked through his kitchen window and displayed a pocketknife. He also raised concerns about late‑night noise, including slamming doors and banging. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to call the resident on 4 April and left messages for him on 12 and 13 April 2023.
13. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which requires a response to ‘serious ASB’ within 3 working days. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on the same day he reported the knife incident, which was appropriate given the seriousness of the reports, and made further attempts by phone 5 working days later.
14. The evidence shows that throughout April 2023 the landlord took actions consistent with its ASB policy. In particular, the landlord:
    1. Liaised with the police regarding the steps it intended to take.
    2. Visited the neighbour to discuss the reported incidents.
    3. Visited the resident and requested that he complete diary sheets.
15. On 12 May 2023, the landlord left a message for the resident requesting an update on police involvement. It also reviewed the case, noting that the resident had stopped reporting further issues and that no police update had been received. On 20 May 2023, the police informed the landlord that it would be taking no further action.
16. At this point in the investigation the landlord responded within the required timescales, undertook proportionate investigation steps, liaised with relevant agencies, and reviewed the case appropriately when new evidence did not emerge.
17. In July 2023, the resident reported a further incident in which he said the neighbour threatened him with a knife. The evidence shows that between August and November 2023 the landlord took actions that were appropriate and consistent with its ASB policy. During this period, it liaised regularly with both the police and the local authority, engaged directly with the neighbour regarding the reports, and ultimately issued a notice of seeking possession. This approach reflected the landlord’s multi‑agency responsibilities and its policy requirement to escalate matters where early interventions had not resolved the issues and where the seriousness of the ASB reports persisted.
18. In January 2024, the resident again reported noise nuisance, describing coughing and the slamming of doors by the neighbour. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets to help evidence the frequency and impact of the incidents, but also advised him that coughing would not be considered noise nuisance under its policy. On 6 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it intended to close the case. The resident replied the following day, stating that the coughing continued late at night and was causing him stress.
19. At the end of February, the landlord reviewed the case and noted that the resident had not returned any diary sheets. It decided to close the case, although this did not occur until 22 April 2024. No further reports were received from the resident during this period. Given the absence of evidence and the landlord’s early explanation that coughing did not fall within its definition of noise nuisance, it was reasonable for it to close the case. The landlord’s clear communication to the resident about what it could and could not act on reflected good practice in managing expectations.
20. In his formal complaint of 1 July 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that his ASB case had been closed in April 2024 while, in his view, late‑night noise continued. He stated that the neighbour’s coughing was “fake” and intended to cause him annoyance and intimidation. He also requested that sound insulation be installed.
21. In its response, the landlord explained that the case had been closed because no evidence had been provided. It clarified that the reported noises did not constitute statutory nuisance and therefore were not enforceable under its ASB policy. The landlord further advised that evidence of statutory nuisance would normally need to come from environmental health and provided their contact details. The landlord’s response was appropriate. It set out its position clearly, explained the evidential requirements needed to progress the matter, directed the resident to the correct agency for statutory noise assessment, and offered mediation as a constructive resolution option.
22. The resident escalated his complaint, stating that the resolution he sought was for the properties to be soundproofed and for the landlord to ensure that the building complied with relevant noise regulations. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its position that the reported noises did not amount to actionable noise nuisance. It also explained that no residential property could be completely soundproofed and that a level of everyday noise was inevitable in communal living environments.
23. The landlord further clarified that the building had been constructed in accordance with the building regulations in place at the time. This was accurate, as generally a property does not need to be updated to meet current building regulations if it was compliant with the regulations in place when it was built.
24. The landlord also referred to information from a telephone call on 28 August 2024, during which the resident had stated that the situation had improved and it confirmed it would not be providing soundproofing. As part of its efforts to support the resident, the landlord suggested he consider using thicker underlay to help reduce sound transmission within his home. Additionally, it advised that it would liaise with its assets team to arrange a building inspection to confirm whether the property met “current relevant environmental noise regulations”.
25. This was an appropriate response, as the landlord restated the position it had already explained to the resident at an early stage. Although it confirmed that it could not install soundproofing, it did agree to check whether the property met the relevant noise regulations. The meaning of this was not fully clear from the written response. However, the evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property on 12 September 2024, focusing on the type of flooring beneath the carpets and the communal area, the presence of double glazing, and any visible internal or external holes in the walls. The surveyor also recommended “getting the cavity checked”. It is evident that the landlord handled the matter in a resolution‑focused way and provided practical reassurance that aligned with the outcome the resident was seeking.
26. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with its ASB policy throughout the period of the resident’s reports. It responded to serious reports within required timescales, liaised with the police, engaged with both parties, and escalated matters appropriately when early interventions failed. The landlord clearly explained why the noise reports did not meet the threshold for nuisance and committed to checking building compliance. This was proportionate and resolution‑focused.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
28. The landlord acknowledged both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the timescale set out in its policy. At stage 1, it requested an extension by contacting the resident, although this was done on the day the response was due. The stage 1 response was then issued within the required 10 working days.
29. The stage 2 response was provided 21 working days after acknowledgement, which is one day outside of the landlord’s policy timescale. However, we do not consider this delay to be unreasonable and no significant detriment was caused to the resident as a result.
30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint broadly aligned with its published timescales. While there was a minor delay of one day in issuing the stage 2 response, this was minimal and does not amount to an unreasonable failure in complaint handling.

Learning

31. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

32. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was of a good standard, with clear and detailed notes maintained throughout most of the case.

Communication

33. The overall communication from the landlord to the resident throughout the ASB case was timely and appropriate. However, the landlord should ensure that any commitments are described in plain, unambiguous language.