Gosport Borough Council (202524175)

Background

1. The landlord knew that the resident had several medical conditions, including depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. The resident made intermittent reports of noise nuisance caused by a neighbour’s dog barking. The landlord advised her to report the noise nuisance to Environmental Health (EH) and inspected the block. In April 2025 the landlord wrote to her about her mother’s dog fouling in communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s dog causing noise nuisance.
   2. Letter regarding a dog linked to the resident’s property.
   3. Handling of the related complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s dog causing noise nuisance.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s letter regarding a dog linked to the resident’s property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took some appropriate steps in response to the resident’s reports, including acknowledging each incident, inspecting the block, reviewing evidence provided, and working with EH to determine whether the dog barking amounted to a statutory noise nuisance. However, there were service failures, including the absence of an agreed action plan, the failure to provide noise‑nuisance diary sheets, insufficient updates to the resident, and ineffective management of her expectations. These caused inconvenience and frustration.
7. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord wrote to the resident about a tenancy breach after CCTV showed a dog (that she was responsible for) urinating in communal areas.
8. The landlord’s complaint handling fell short in some respects, but these shortcomings were minor and did not cause the resident any detriment. However, the landlord did not recognise or address these issues during the complaint process.

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.

What we have not considered

9. We can investigate local authority social landlords only as far as the issues relate to the management or provision of social housing. We cannot consider any action taken (or not taken) by the landlord in its role as a local authority, rather than its role as a landlord. This includes any action taken by EH. That would be for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to determine.
10. We may not investigate events that residents do not raise as a formal complaint within 12 months of reporting an issue. In this case, the resident reported a dog barking in August 2023 and again in February 2024. However, we found no evidence that she complained about the landlord’s handling of the issue until 24 April 2025. There were also gaps in the resident’s reports from August 2023 to February 2024 and from February 2024 to May 2024. Therefore, while earlier reports provide context, we have investigated events from May 2024 onwards when the resident began to make further regular reports of dog barking nuisance.
11. In April and June 2025, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports about a dog barking. This exhausted its internal complaint process in August 2025. The landlord informed us that in November 2025, the resident made a new complaint about its handling of noise nuisance caused by dog barking after August 2025, and it issued a stage 2 response on 7 January 2026. The resident did not bring that complaint to us. We therefore did not investigate the landlord’s actions after August 2025.
12. We investigated events between May 2024 and August 2025.

What we did investigate

13. The landlord has several policies that set out how it responds to ASB reports, including its housing services statement on dealing with ASB, its policy and procedure for supporting complainants, witnesses and perpetrators, and its ASB enforcement policy and procedures. These policies overlap and, for clarity, we refer to them collectively as the landlord’s ASB policies in this report.
14. It is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident. It may assist to first explain that our role is not to decide whether ASB occurred but rather whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
15. Between May 2024 and August 2025, the resident made several reports of noise nuisance allegedly caused by the neighbour’s dog barking. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged each of her reports and discussed them with her. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policies, which requires it to discuss such reports with the complainant to understand the nature of the problem.
16. We appreciate how strongly the resident feels about the noise she reported, and do not dispute that it may have distressed her. A landlord can only take action based on the evidence available and residents play a key role in the landlord’s management of ASB. This is because they must work with the landlord to gather evidence of ASB. Without residents’ co-operation, it can be difficult for a landlord to obtain the evidence required to take further actions, including tenancy enforcement.
17. The resident repeatedly said that the landlord was responsible for gathering evidence rather than her. The evidence also shows gaps in her reports of dog barking. Between May 2024 and January 2025, the resident reported barking on 4 occasions, with several weeks between reports. The resident’s limited co-operation and sporadic reporting made it difficult for the landlord to fully understand the issues or gather sufficient evidence to take action.
18. We recognise that the landlord made attempts to gather and review evidence of the events. For example, in August 2024, the resident sent footage to the landlord, which she said showed the dog barking. However, the landlord could not access the videos and asked her to re-send the evidence via WhatsApp. This was reasonable as it provided an alternative way for the resident to share the footage and showed willingness to review potential evidence. However, the resident did not do so, and she made no further reports until October 2024.
19. In addition, the landlord inspected the block several times to try to witness the dog barking. For example, on 28 and 29 May 2025, it visited the block but was unable to hear the neighbour’s dog barking. It also invited the resident to a meeting to discuss the ASB issues, but she did not attend. These were reasonable actions by the landlord. It showed that it took the resident’s reports seriously and wanted to establish the facts of the case, in line with its ASB policies.
20. The landlord worked with EH to determine whether the neighbour’s dog barking amounted to a statutory noise nuisance, as required by its ASB policies. On 7 May 2024 after the resident reported that the dog had barked for 30 minutes, the landlord advised her to report the matter to EH and provided guidance on how to do so. This approach was reasonable and consistent with its ASB policies. The resident did not make a report to EH as advised.
21. In March and April 2025, the resident made further consecutive reports of noise nuisance. The landlord repeated its advice for her to report the alleged noise nuisance to EH. When she refused, the landlord referred the matter to EH. It then liaised with EH to arrange the installation of recording equipment. It also continued to encourage the resident to report the nuisance to EH and the resident eventually did. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord and in line with its ASB policies.
22. It is evident that the landlord took some steps to investigate the issue of dog barking and worked in partnership with EH to establish if there was a statutory noise nuisance. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it had correctly handled the matters. However, we have identified some failings.
23. Between May 2024 and August 2025, the resident and the landlord communicated frequently and discussed several issues, including dog barking. Although the landlord encouraged her to report the noise to EH, it did not take some of the key steps described in its ASB policies. It did not agree an action plan or contact schedule with the resident, and it did not provide nuisance‑diary sheets. These steps would have helped the landlord understand the frequency, nature, and impact of the noise and manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s failure to take these actions likely contributed to the resident feeling that it did not take her reports seriously.
24. The landlord’s ASB policies say it may not get involved in neighbour disputes. But they also say it would offer mediation in low‑level ASB cases and advise residents on steps to resolve issues and discuss with them behaviours that are unacceptable. It also contacts other residents and alleged perpetrators when investigating ASB reports. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord took these actions. For instance, it did not evidence that it discussed the allegations with the neighbour or other residents. These steps would have helped the landlord establish the facts of the case and assisted its evidence gathering. Its failure to take these actions were missed opportunities to resolve the issue sooner and prevent escalation.
25. In June 2025, EH installed noise recording equipment and shared the findings with the landlord on 17 June 2025. We understand there was not any significant noise on the recordings and EH concluded the noise did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance. However, the landlord did not show that it discussed this with the resident, explore the next steps or inform her it would not take further actions and why. This was not in line with its ASB policies to keep residents informed and updated.
26. On 14 August 2025, EH informed the landlord that its officer heard the dog barking when on a call with the resident and believed it could amount to a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and said it would take action once it identified the dog owner. EH wrote to the neighbour about the noise nuisance 3 days later. We also understand that both the landlord and EH continued to investigate the matter after the resident exhausted the complaint process. However, as explained earlier, the landlord’s further actions beyond August 2025 do not form part of this investigation.
27. In accordance with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation to acknowledge the adverse impact of its service failures on her. This amount reflects the inconvenience and frustration caused by the absence of an agreed action plan, the failure to provide noise‑nuisance diary sheets, inadequate updates, and ineffective management of her expectations. Our decision also takes into account that the landlord’s failings did not likely alter the overall outcome of the case. We further recognise that the landlord made efforts to address the matter and worked with EH. Additionally, the resident’s limited engagement created challenges for the landlord in collecting sufficient evidence to justify action against the alleged perpetrator.

28. On 25 March 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange a visit on 3 April 2025 to discuss concerns about her tenancy. This was after it viewed CCTV footage of a dog fouling in communal areas. It was unable to address the issues when it visited the resident because she refused entry. It then emailed her and offereda meeting with her about the tenancy breachesin line with its ASB policies.
29. The resident refused to meet, said she felt insulted, and advised that she did not own a dog. The landlord explained that video evidence showed a dog entering and leaving her property and urinating in the communal areas. It noted that she had previously told the landlord she sometimes looked after her mother’s dog, and it had granted permission for that arrangement.
30. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to approach the resident about the dog fouling. Although she did not own the dog, under the terms of her tenancy, she was responsible for the behaviour of visitors, including nuisance caused by animals.
31. After she refused to meet, the landlord wrote to her, explaining that it had CCTV footage of the dog she helped look after urinating in communal areas. It said this breached her tenancy terms and that it might revoke the permission for the dog. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policies. It also clearly explained its position in its subsequent complaint responses.

32. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If a resident is unhappy with the outcome at stage 1, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2 within 20 working days. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay.
33. Between April 2025 and July 2025, the resident submitted two stage 1 complaints and escalated one of these to stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the complaints in writing, as required by its complaints policy. However, this did not adversely impact the resident, as the landlord engaged promptly with her to discuss the issues raised, and she was clearly aware that it was investigating her complaints. The landlord also issued stage 1 responses within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
34. In April 2025, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about several issues, including her neighbour’s dog barking, which the landlord responded to and she did not escalate. She made a further complaint 38 working days later, alleging a dog attack, ongoing problems with the neighbour’s dog, and that the landlord had incorrectly written to her about a dog she did not own. The landlord reasonably logged this as a new complaint, in line with its complaints policy, as the resident did not request escalation of her previous complaint within 20 working days and had raised new issues.
35. On 16 July 2025, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord logged the complaint the following day and internally aimed to respond by 13 August 2025. It did not acknowledge the escalation in writing. The investigator later advised that annual leave would prevent them from responding until 18 August 2025. The landlord didnot inform the resident of the delay or seek her agreement to a revised response date. It ultimately issued its stage 2 response 2 working days outside of its complaints policy timeframe. This was a short delay, and we did not see evidence that this adversely impacted the resident.
36. The landlord made minor errors in its complaint handling, but these did not cause the resident any detriment. However, it did not acknowledge or remedy these failings during the complaint process. In line with our published compensation guidance, we therefore order the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

37. Complaint logs must include acknowledgements, planned extensions, and resident agreements to demonstrate compliance with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. Landlords must formalise each ASB case through documented plans to support transparent decision‑making, ensure all parties understand the process and manage residents’ expectations.

Communication

39. The landlord did not provide consistent updates, explain key outcomes, manage expectations, or follow complaint‑handling communication standards, contributing to the resident’s frustration. It should seek to improve its communications.