Amplius Living (202529630)

Background

1. The resident reported anti-social behaviour to the landlord in February 2025. She reported noise such as banging, shouting and arguing. She also reported the smell of cannabis and incidents of verbal abuse/threats. She has told us the ASB was ongoing until the neighbour moved in December 2025. The resident told the landlord the situation impacted her and her husband’s wellbeing. The resident has physical health conditions. Her husband has physical and mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. We recognise the impact the situation had on the resident and her husband. While the landlord was not always able to achieve the outcome the resident hoped for, it managed the case appropriately. It responded to her ASB reports in line with its policy and acted on the evidence available at each stage. It took reasonable steps to assess risk, gather evidence, work with relevant agencies, and manage the case.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

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 investigated

7. In contact with the landlord and us, the resident said the ASB issues were affecting her and her husband’s health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on them, 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. We have not investigated this further. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
8. The resident told us she felt her neighbour should not have been housed next door to her because the landlord knew about her and her husband’s vulnerabilities. We have not assessed the allocation of the neighbour’s property, as this concern was not raised with the landlord as part of the formal complaint. The landlord therefore has not had the opportunity to provide its position.
9. We acknowledge the resident continued to report ASB after the landlord issued its complaint response. We recognise the impact these ongoing incidents had on her and her husband, including that her husband began sleeping in a tent in the garden. We acknowledge that there were many reports and interventions. However, the landlord has not had the opportunity to confirm its position on its handling of this later period. For this reason, we  have not investigated the landlord’s handling of incidents after 4 July 2025.

What we have investigated

10. It is clear the resident and her husband found the situation very distressing. We acknowledge the impact the situation had on them. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded to her ASB reports in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
11. The landlord provided us with its records showing how it responded to the resident’s ASB reports. It is noted that there has been a significant amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding the ASB. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, this report does not address every issue or incident individually. We consider all available evidence and assesses the landlord’s overall handling of the case.
12. The landlord’s ASB and Neighbourhood Management Policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. It commits to completing risk assessments, creating action plans, signposting to other agencies, and working in partnership.
13. Upon receiving the resident’s early reports of noise in February, March and April 2025, the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy. It:
    1. Logged a case and completed a risk assessment.
    2. Created an action plan.
    3. Discussed the allegations with the neighbour including ways to limit noise.
    4. Issued a warning to the neighbour.
    5. Discussed the resident’s support needs.
    6. Liaised with the police.
14. The resident provided many noise app recordings to the landlord and described the noise as “torture”. The landlord found that most of the recordings did not show a breach of tenancy, however it issued the neighbour with a warning based on the recordings that did evidence a concern. It also worked with environmental health, who installed noise‑recording equipment in the resident’s property in June 2025. This was good case management by the landlord as the resident had concerns the noise app was not working correctly. Environmental health did not find a statutory nuisance and said that the evidence did not support further action. This showed the landlord made evidence based decisions using the information available at the time.
15. The landlord considered other actions it could take. The landlord and the police did not have evidence of cannabis use at the neighbours property. It offered mediation, which the resident later accepted, and asked both parties to sign a good neighbour agreement. These were positive steps, as mediation and good neighbour agreements are useful intervention tools when there is limited evidence to meet the threshold for formal ASB enforcement.
16. The landlord maintained regular contact with the resident and updated her on its actions. It told her when noise recordings did not show a breach of tenancy. It also was clear if it viewed any incidents as both parties being at fault, such as during the verbal altercation between the resident and neighbour in May 2025. While this was not the outcome the resident was hoping for, the landlord was transparent on actions it could or could not take.
17. The resident has told us that she felt the landlord minimised her concerns by suggesting she wore earplugs and that her and husband lived too quietly. We do not dispute her account. However, we have not seen evidence that this advice was given. The landlord did ask the resident to make noise recordings with some background sound. The action plan provided to the resident explained that this was to show the impact on normal daily living. In our view, the landlord’s request was reasonable as it assisted with evidence gathering.
18. The resident told the landlord that the incidents were affecting their wellbeing, particularly her husband, who has PTSD. The landlord considered their support needs by discussing what support they had in place and signposting relevant services. It also regularly re‑risk assessed the case. The neighbour also had vulnerabilities, which the landlord needed to consider when managing the situation.
19. In summary, we note the resident’s emails to the landlord show how stressful the situation was for her and her husband. We recognise the impact this had on them. While the landlord was not always able to achieve the outcome the resident hoped for, it managed the case appropriately. It responded to her ASB reports in line with its policy and acted on the evidence available at each stage. It took reasonable steps to assess risk, gather evidence, work with relevant agencies, and manage the case. Overall we find no maladministration by the landlord in this case.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy complies with the definition of a complaint and timescales outlined in the Code (April 2024). 
21. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at both stages and issued its stage 1 response on time, in line with its policy.
22. The resident told the landlord she no longer wanted to pursue her complaint. It was positive that the landlord attempted to contact her to confirm this before closing the case. The resident later said she wished to continue, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the required timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord provided adequate records for the scope of our investigation.

Communication

24. The landlord communicated with the resident throughout the ASB case and set clear expectations about the actions it could and could not take. It also worked in partnership with agencies such as the police and environmental health to support its investigation. These are positive practices that the landlord should continue to apply in future ASB cases.