Cheshire West and Chester Council (202329111)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about antisocial behaviour from a neighbour and noise transfer from a different neighbouring property in 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s reports of noise transfer.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have made findings of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s reports of noise transfer.
4. We have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord consistently failed to apply its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and did not recognise this. It regularly signposted the resident to the police rather than taking steps to manage the ASB itself. Though it did some partnership working, it did not take actions in line with its ASB policy.
6. Though the landlord acknowledged poor communication, it failed to fully address this or ascertain the cause of delays in responding and providing information about noise transfer. It unreasonably relied on inadequate records and there was a delay in it conducting an appropriate survey. It failed to consider vulnerabilities in the resident’s household, despite repeated indications of the impact on them, or adapt its approach in light of the resident’s safety concerns. It gave inaccurate statements about damp in its complaint response and has provided no evidence it undertook works and reinspected.
7. The landlord failed to acknowledge the excessive delay in its stage 1 response and did not use the complaint investigation to adequately assess the concerns raised.

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.

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.

8. It is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord dealt with the reports it received and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
9. The landlord’s ASB handbook (relevant at the time) says it will acknowledge ASB reports in 2 working days. It will contact the resident in 5 working days and the alleged perpetrator 5 working days after that. It says it will keep residents updated and discuss with the reporter before closing the case. It confirms it will agree an action plan and give the reporter a specific contact and explain what it will do with reports. It includes a variety of actions it can take including tenancy warnings, injunctions, and tenancy demotions. It states in some circumstances it may be more suitable to allow other agencies to act first. If it is not possible to resolve a case within 13 weeks, it will refer the case to a specialist community safety co-ordinator. It will carry out a risk assessment and, where necessary, install surveillance equipment or enlist professional witnesses.
10. In March 2023, the resident responded to a generic letter from the landlord about dog fouling. He said a neighbour had threatened him in October 2022 and, though the police had told him they would inform the landlord, he received no contact from them. He said the neighbour was responsible for drug use and other ASB that was ongoing. We understand that multi-agency information sharing can be challenging and the landlord may not have been aware of any historic incidents of ASB. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable to contact the resident to acknowledge and follow up this report in line with its ASB policy. The landlord’s failure to respond to this report was inappropriate.
11. The resident raised his complaint in June 2023 about noise transfer from a difference address and, during that process, explained he did not feel safe for the landlord to visit him at his property. In July 2023, he explained this was due to ASB from the neighbour as he did not want her to see him speaking to the landlord as she may suspect him of reporting her behaviour and make further threats. He referred the landlord to the police as he said they were visiting the neighbour regularly. The landlord failed to respond to this which was inappropriate and caused further delay.
12. In September 2023, the resident reported further ASB from the neighbour. He stated she was fly tipping in the communal area and multiple adults were sleeping in a tent outside her flat. The landlord responded to say a new housing officer would be in touch. The landlord again failed to acknowledge, or respond to, the ASB reported in line with its policy. Two weeks after the resident’s report, the housing officer advised him to report criminal behaviour to the police. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, it has a duty under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to ASB reported by its residents with a victim centred approach. The landlord’s limited response meant it failed to meet this duty or act within its policy.
13. In January 2024, the landlord was resolution focussed in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB despite it not being part of the original complaint. However, the landlord advised the resident to report ASB to the police and said the police had advised there were ‘very few reports’ but they would increase patrols. This response was inappropriate and unreasonable. It failed to acknowledge it had not acted within its ASB policy by creating an action plan or carrying out a risk assessment. It is also concerning that the landlord felt that ‘very few reports’ of ASB meant it was not required to address these.
14. In February 2024, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident away from his home. He raised further ASB by the neighbour. It noted he had a significant amount of evidence of ASB but he did not want to share this with the landlord due to its previous failure to act or respond. It agreed to arrange a meeting with the police. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police.
15. In March 2024, the resident escalated his complaint, stating the landlord failed to properly assess his neighbour before housing her, noting her family’s history of drug‑related imprisonment. He said elderly and vulnerable residents were too afraid to report issues, especially as previous complaints led to no action. He claimed police attended the property around 16 times, and the landlord had replaced doors and windows after raids and criminal damage so he believed they were aware of the issues. He also reported regular fly‑tipping by the neighbour, which he also believed the landlord was aware of as it had arranged removal of items on multiple occasions. In response, the landlord failed to show it appropriately considered possible actions within its policy, including installation of surveillance equipment. Given the nature of the ASB reported and the distress the resident mentioned, this was unreasonable.
16. Later in March 2024, the landlord attended the meeting it had previously offered with the resident (and with the police present). The landlord’s notes confirm the resident provided considerable information and 3 days later the police executed a warrant, removed items from the neighbouring flat and made an arrest. The landlord asked the resident to provide weekly updates of the ASB, and said they would pass this to the police. It was positive to create a communication plan but this put the burden entirely on the resident with no reasonable action plan, risk assessment or proposed timescales. Following the execution of the warrant, the resident confirmed this to the landlord and asked why it was not taking action. The landlord did not respond to this report or provide any indication it had appropriately considered possible actions in line with its ASB policy. This was unreasonable.
17. In April 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said there was ‘little evidence or information’ of ASB held by itself or the police. This was an unreasonable response as it was aware of police successfully executing a warrant, making an arrest and seizing items from the property. Whilst its policy says it will sometimes allow other agencies to take action if this is more suitable, the police action does not negate the duty the landlord had to address ASB over the previous 12 months.
18. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the remedies available to it or refer to a specialist community safety co-ordinator in line with its policy, particularly given the lengthy timescales involved. The landlord again told the resident to report criminal activity to the police without considering steps it could take to assist in line with its ASB policy.
19. Later in April 2024, the landlord met with the resident again. This was a positive step and it encouraged the resident to report ASB to both it and the police and confirmed there were no new incidents. It advised it would visit the neighbour to speak about fly tipping and dog fouling. It did so but does not appear to have appropriately used this opportunity to discuss the historic ASB with the neighbour. It also failed to update the resident of this visit in line with its policy. In September 2024, the resident chased the landlord for an update due to an increase in ASB. We have seen no evidence it responded which was unreasonable and indicates it failed to learn lessons from its earlier failings.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy at various points. Though it did some partnership working, it has provided no evidence it acted according to its policy in relation to assessment, communication and consideration of remedies or escalation. Given the level of ASB reported and engagement with the police, the landlord should have been able to show consideration of robust steps to address the ASB in line with its policy, or communication with the resident if this was not possible.
21. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £600 which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on a resident. We have also ordered the landlord to conduct a case review and contact the resident to establish if ASB is ongoing and, if so, take action in accordance with its policy.

What we have not investigated

22. Throughout his complaint, the resident referred to how the living conditions impacted the health and wellbeing of the household. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and his son and whether the landlord adequately considered their vulnerabilities.

What we have investigated

23. In June 2023, the resident complained that he had previously reported noise from his downstairs neighbour who removed fuses from extractor fans to prevent the noise. The neighbours moved out and the landlord completed some void works and left the fans on. He explained the noise was persistent and intrusive and affecting vulnerabilities within the household. We do not have any evidence that the resident raised the problem with the landlord prior to his complaint. However, the landlord failed to respond to this for 3 weeks, despite further chasing from the resident. This was inappropriate and shows poor communication.
24. When the landlord responded in July 2023, it asked to visit the resident. This was a reasonable step to confirm the source and level of noise transfer. The resident agreed to meet but felt unable to do so at his flat. Due to the level of ASB from another neighbour, he was concerned for his safety if that neighbour witnessed the landlord visiting him. This caused an understandable barrier to the landlord in assessing the issue. However, it then failed to respond to the resident to arrange a meeting or clarify why it wanted to access his property. It would have been reasonable to offer a visit from a repairs engineer rather than a housing officer to best assess the issue and minimise the resident’s concern for his safety.
25. The landlord stated that it inspected the fans in August 2023; however, it has not provided any inspection notes or records to evidence this. Without contemporaneous documentation, we cannot assess the adequacy of the investigation it says took place. The absence of records also meant the resident was not updated and had to pursue the matter himself, causing additional time and trouble.
26. In September 2023, the resident continued to raise noise from the fans and the effect it had on their health. He asked for a specification and data sheet for the fan. The landlord responded to confirm it was chasing this information. Whilst this was a positive improvement in its communication, it failed to follow this up within an adequate period. It has provided no evidence it considered the household vulnerabilities or took any further action at this time. It did not pursue a repairs visit to the resident or assess the fan noise at this point.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in January 2024, following intervention from us. It said the fan had been overhauled and was in good working order. It noted this was its standard specification of fan and it had not received reports of noise other than the resident’s. It noted that he said the fan was continuously running and advised this could be a sign of damp. It confirmed it would carry out a damp survey of the flat below and the fans.
28. This was a reasonable step and showed it was willing to undertake further diagnostic works. It also asked to visit the resident ‘discretely.’ This again failed to consider the resident’s concerns for his safety and reasonably offer a repairs operative to avoid suspicion and help with an accurate diagnosis. It said it would reflect on the cause of its poor communication but did not commit to explain its failings to the resident. This shows a limited investigation and a failure to properly address its shortcomings.
29. In January 2024, the landlord carried out a survey of the fans, and the related repairs sheet shows a good record of the inspection. This was a clear improvement in its record keeping and provided suitable information to rely upon. The survey confirmed it had overhauled the fans, and they were working correctly with normal noise. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this report.
30. In February 2024, the landlord carried out a damp survey of the flat below which noted multiple signs of damp and follow on repairs required. This evidences a positive follow up to actions proposed in its complaint response and continued diagnostic works. However, it again failed to reasonably communicate the results of these surveys to the resident in a timely fashion. This caused him further time and trouble in pursuing the landlord.
31. In March 2024, the resident escalated his complaint. He said the previous downstairs neighbours had agreed the fans were noisy and also mentioned they had damp and mould. He requested copies of the inspection reports and data sheets, which the landlord had still not provided. The landlord’s continued failure to pro-actively communicate and provide such information shows there was insufficient improvement in its communications, despite it acknowledging this in its complaint response.
32. The landlord asked to meet with the resident to discuss his complaint, and he again requested the information. The landlord provided the relevant inspection report which was a positive improvement, but the resident noted that it had redacted some of the information. We have seen a copy of this, and it is unclear why it would redact any information. The landlord does not appear to have appropriately taken the opportunity to clarify this with the resident.
33. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord providing information as this was 6 months after the original request. The resident was not available to meet within the landlord’s timeframe so it offered a meeting after the due date of the complaint response. This was resolution focussed and a positive step in repairing the trust with the resident.
34. In April 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it had visited the flat below and had not found ‘excessive damp.’ This was an inappropriate response as it had found damp and identified follow on works as a result. It advised that the fans ran at a low speed constantly and increase with humidity. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the affect the damp it had noted may have on this. It provided the data sheets the resident had requested and asked to carry out a home visit to be able to resolve this. It did suggest bringing a repairs inspector which was a reasonable step.
35. We do not have any evidence that a home visit took place or that the landlord inspected the fans after completing damp works in the flat below. The resident has said he would like someone impartial to visit, both for safety concerns and because of the lack of trust he holds in his landlord.
36. Overall, the landlord failed to carry out a reasonable inspection of the fan for 7 months. This was an unreasonable delay. It repeatedly failed to provide adequate communication to the resident. It delayed providing information and gave an inaccurate response at stage 2. The landlord has not shown it considered the household vulnerabilities. Though it undertook some diagnostic work, it then failed to reasonably follow this up.
37. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication but continued to offer a similar service. We have ordered it to pay £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse impact. We have also ordered the landlord to conduct a further inspection of both flats and to provide a copy of the resulting report to the resident.

38. Under the Ombudsman’s 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.
39. The resident complained about the noise transfer from the fan in June 2023. It is not clear from the evidence provided if this issue was previously been brought to the landlord’s attention. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to clarify if this was a complaint or a service request. The landlord’s failure to establish either led to the resident seeking involvement from us.
40. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in January 2024, 7 months after the resident raised his complaint. It acknowledged its poor communication through the complaint process and said it would reflect on this. It is unclear why it could not take the opportunity to reflect on this during its complaint investigation to provide more reassurance to the resident and prevent reoccurrence.
41. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the appropriate timescale.
42. Though the landlord acknowledged poor communication by housing management in general but did not appropriately acknowledge its stage 1 delay. It did not recognise the time and trouble it took the resident to pursue a response via the Ombudsman. We have found service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had a limited impact.

Learning

ASB

43. The landlord must work with the police where appropriate but cannot rely on police involvement as a substitute for its own ASB responsibilities or delay acting because another agency is involved. This case also underlines the need to identify and support vulnerable residents early, as failing to recognise vulnerability can worsen outcomes and prolong distress. Residents often fear repercussions when reporting ASB and the landlord should consider offering off site meetings to residents to encourage engagement in its ASB policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. This case shows the value of keeping clear and comprehensive records, which the landlord generally achieved. However, it also highlights the importance of completing active inspection reports rather than drawing positive conclusions from a lack of information. Relying on an absence of recorded issues can mask problems and lead to inaccurate assessments. Keeping adequate inspection notes helps ensure the landlord bases its decisions on verified evidence rather than assumptions. This approach strengthens case management, helps maintain consistent service standards and improve trust with residents.

Communication

45. This case demonstrates how initial poor communication undermines residents’ confidence in the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report highlights communication as a key factor shaping trust, noting that unclear or delayed updates contribute to residents feeling dismissed and unsupported. Even when communication improved somewhat, providing inaccurate information or failing to manage expectations continued to damage the landlord and tenant relationship and delay resolution. The landlord could have strengthened trust by ensuring all communication was prompt and accurate from the outset.