West Northamptonshire Council (202538299)

Decision
Case ID	202538299
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	West Northamptonshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	06 July 2026

Background

The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour for approximately 18 months. This included banging, noisy visitors at unsociable hours and drug paraphernalia. The resident believes the landlord should have acted more quickly and decisively. The landlord said it had to consider needs and vulnerabilities of the neighbour and had acted appropriately. The resident is neurodivergent and has mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
We found no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

The landlord did act within its policy when it originally opened an ASB case. But it did not always do action plans and risk assessments. It should have been clearer about whether it found there was ASB and considered the wider impact on the resident given their vulnerabilities. Its compensation offer did not fully reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord followed its policy with minimal delay.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 03 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 03 August 2026
3	Contact order The landlord should contact the resident (or his representative) and determine: whether ASB is currently an issue, if so, it should open a case in line with its policy and keep the resident updated at an agreed frequency whether the resident is currently living within the property. If not, the landlord should discuss whether it can take any action to support the resident to move back in The landlord must send us a copy of its communication with the resident to confirm compliance.	No later than 03 August 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should review its approach to ASB/statutory noise cases where noise transference is a contributing factor. It should consider what other actions it can take to improve the situation for affected residents particularly where the resident is vulnerable.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 August 2025	The resident made their complaint. They felt the landlord was not effectively managing the ASB, and it had negatively affected their wellbeing for over a year.
1 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed the resident’s options which included mediation and noise monitoring equipment. It said it would continue to monitor new reports. And promised to reinforce staff training in relation to ASB and take enforcement action against the neighbour where appropriate.
11 September 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. They felt the landlord: had not met its timescales should have taken legal action should be able to act if the neighbour did not engage with it
9 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It concluded that it should have taken legal action against the neighbour sooner, and its management of the situation could have been better. It offered £150 compensation and agreed that if the resident reported any new incidents, it would install noise monitoring equipment. It also agreed to support the resident’s application for alternative housing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident wants the landlord to take more decisive action against the neighbour and wants it to follow its ASB policy.

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 antisocial behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Maladministration

We have seen evidence that the resident reported ASB as early as 2023. To ensure there is evidence available we limit our consideration of a case to issues raised with both the landlord and us within a reasonable period. As such, we will consider the period of 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. We will therefore consider the period of August 2024 until October 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
After the resident reported frequent visitors and noise nuisance on 7 March 2024, the landlord created an action plan, completed a risk assessment, and contacted the resident within 1 working day. The landlord sent the neighbour a warning on 12 March 2024 after phone contact failed. It closed the ASB case in April 2024 with the resident’s agreement after the noise reduced. This was consistent with its ASB policy.
In September 2024, the resident reported further ASB, including noise nuisance, drug paraphernalia, threatening behaviour, and visitors accessing the property while the neighbour was absent. The resident said this affected his mental health. The landlord opened an action plan, but there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment, as required by its policy.
In September 2024, the landlord’s records say it considered acting outside its policy because of the impact on the resident’s health and the neighbour’s lack of engagement. It took further action to deter visitors while the neighbour was away. This was reasonable and records show it was effective until the neighbour returned.
Between September 2024 and October 2025, the landlord opened 4 ASB cases. It did not consistently complete action plans or risk assessments within its policy timescales. It did not produce an action plan in January 2025, completed the September 2024 risk assessment in October 2024, and did not consistently record the impact on the resident.
The landlord said noise transference and everyday living noise may have been factors, but there is no evidence it investigated this further. It reviewed the resident’s noise app recordings but did not visit to do any controlled testing. Noise monitoring was limited by its waiting list and the intermittent ASB, as the ASB was not always active when the equipment became available. This was outside the landlord’s control as it could not predict the frequency of the ASB.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it could provide rugs or carpets for the flat above to minimise noise which was reasonable. But given the neighbour’s lack of engagement, it should also have considered alternative options if they did not allow access, such as permanent acoustic underlay.
The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy, including issuing warnings, deterring visitors, and serving a Notice Seeking Possession. It liaised with relevant third parties such as the police and probation services to try and contact the neighbour. But it did not take formal action quickly enough. It acknowledged this during the complaint process and offered £150 compensation.
Its policy allows multiple options to manage ASB including tenancy sustainment contracts and acceptable behaviour contracts. There is no evidence it tried these. While it acknowledged this during the complaint procedure, there is no evidence it tried either choice at any point. The landlord should have considered how it would work with the neighbour even during periods of reduced ASB, to prevent a recurrence.
The landlord has since supported the resident to apply for alternative accommodation. Throughout the period investigated the resident made it clear that the noise nuisance was negatively affecting his mental health. On several occasions he chose to stay with family rather than return to the property.
We acknowledge that the landlord has tenancy responsibilities to both parties regarding ASB. As such it must carefully consider whether formal action is appropriate and proportionate where there are suspected tenancy breaches. But in this case, the landlord admitted failings in its handling of ASB in this case.
For the reasons above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB. While the actions it took were in line with its policy, it did not use all tools at its disposal to engage the neighbour. It also did not act quickly enough, despite the impact on the resident. The landlord offered £150 compensation but this was not reflective of the level of distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
As such, the landlord must pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. This is inclusive of the £150 offered during the complaints process. This compensation is consistent with our guidance for failures which adversely impacted a resident and the offer of redress it made was not proportionate to the failings found by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
The landlord missed the response time by 1 working day at both stages. However, the delay was minimal, and there is no evidence that the delayed response had a negative impact on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses summarised the resident’s concerns clearly and acknowledged their desired outcomes. It addressed each concern along with its findings and apologised for any service failures. It acknowledged the resident’s health concerns and the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour on the enjoyment of his home.
For the reasons above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord’s inconsistent view on the cause of the noise led to confusion and frustration for the resident. It should have explained how it reached the conclusion that the noise was not antisocial, and what the next steps were. This would have given the resident some reassurance that it was looking to support him and improve the situation, particularly as he felt he could not live in the property due to the disruption.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord missed opportunities to progress action in line with its policies where it did not issue written correspondence to the neighbour. Clear and consistent documentation of how it plans to manage ASB, particularly where someone does not engage or has additional needs, would help provide clarity about the steps it intends to take. This approach would also support staff in managing resident expectations.

Communication

The resident and his mother both contacted the landlord about the ASB. The landlord completed checks to confirm authority, but its handling was inconsistent at times. This was particularly clear during the complaints process, when it opened new complaints about similar issues because a different party raised them.