London Borough of Sutton (202404031)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat and has rheumatoid arthritis that is made worse by stress. She reported ongoing noise disturbances, overgrown gardens, verbal abuse, and drug related incidents from 2021 onwards. The landlord opened several antisocial behaviour (ASB) cases, conducted risk assessments, and agreed action plans. It closed each of the cases due to insufficient evidence to take further action. She also questioned whether the landlord had agreed a sensitive let for the property above her. The resident said the issues remained ongoing and she wanted to move. She asked us to investigate whether the landlord had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, noise nuisance, and her request to move.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response resident’s reports of ASB, noise nuisance, and her request to move.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB, noise nuisance, and the request to move

5. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy, by not demonstrating it had investigated reports thoroughly, consistently maintained inadequate records about actions it intended to take, and not explaining some of its decision making. It also missed opportunities to investigate some reports with the police and did not confirm whether a sensitive let had been agreed. Poor communication and unexplained case closures caused the resident distress and uncertainty.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint or alternatively explain why a valid exclusion applied that prevented it from doing so.

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.

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 cannot look at

7. We cannot make a decision about whether a nuisance or ASB has occurred. But we can assess whether the landlord met its legal and policy duties, followed best practice, and acted fairly in response to the reports it received. In this case we used our discretion to consider events from May 2021 because the landlord’s complaint responses reviewed its ASB handling from that time. We acknowledge the resident has reported events prior to this, however, these have not been included in our investigation.

What we can look at

8. The landlord’s ASB policy classifies substance misuse, verbal abuse, and serious or persistent noise as ASB, but does not treat everyday noise, lifestyle differences, overgrown gardens, or minor neighbour disputes as ASB. For non–urgent reports, the policy requires a response within 5 working days and completion of a risk assessment and action plan. It allows the landlord to investigate through interviews, multiagency work, and by encouraging residents to use its noise reporting app. And it sets out enforcement options such as warnings, interviews, signposting, and acceptable behaviour contracts, along with practical noise reduction guidance like using rugs or adjusting routines. When closing a case, the landlord must consider whether insufficient evidence prevents further action and discuss this with the resident.

2021

9. In May 2021, the landlord referred to incidents involving a former neighbour, including the use of the property as temporary accommodation and the council’s decision to move the previous tenant. However, it provided no evidence showing how it handled the case, when it responded, or what tenancy management actions it took. Without this information, it was not possible to assess whether its actions aligned with its ASB policy.
10. However, when the resident reported noise nuisance in December 2021, such as shouting, late night decorating, and moving furniture, the landlord took several steps in line with its policy. It completed a risk assessment, agreed an action plan, interviewed the neighbour, and appealed for witnesses, demonstrating a structured approach to investigation. It then issued an acceptable behaviour contract, which was a proportionate and reasonable response based on the information available. The landlord showed clearer adherence to its ASB policy and applied appropriate tenancy management measures.

2022

11. In April 2022, the resident continued to report ongoing noise disturbances and alleged substance misuse, saying the acceptable behaviour contract was ineffective and that poor soundproofing affected her health. The landlord reviewed her recordings, found no evidence of intentional disturbance, and noted the neighbour was cooperating to minimise noise. It also advised that everyday household sounds did not justify enforcement action, highlighted that ASB had not been “proven,” and pointed to previous steps such as installing carpet and underlay. These actions were consistent with parts of its ASB policy, including managing expectations and liaising with the police, who were taking no further action.
12. However, the noise concerns were ongoing, and the policy identifies “persistent” noise as a form of ASB. When the landlord said ASB had not been proven, it did not explain its reasoning or outline what further steps, such as involving environmental health, it could take to evidence or assess the noise. Nor did it explain what threshold or evidence was required to consider the noise persistent. This lack of clarity meant the landlord was not fully applying its policy and caused the resident distress.
13. There was also no evidence that the landlord contacted the police about the alleged drug misuse, despite advising the resident to do so. This was a missed opportunity to apply a multiagency approach in line with its policy. Similarly, there was no evidence of site visits or enquiries with other residents to investigate the issue. The resident also raised concerns about whether a “sensitive let” had been agreed for the property above, which the landlord did not confirm or clarify. Given its policy allows sensitive lets in cases of long‑term or serious nuisance, the landlord should have known and communicated its position. Its failure to do so created avoidable uncertainty.

2023

14. Across 2023, the resident continued to report a range of issues including verbal abuse, noise, banging, cannabis smells, and concerns about an overgrown garden. The landlord generally took initial steps consistent with its ASB policy such as opening cases, interviewing parties, liaising with police, issuing warnings or concern cards, and referring the resident to environmental health. These actions aligned with the policy’s expectations for early intervention and partnership working.
15. However, the landlord repeatedly fell short in several key areas of its ASB policy. It did not meet its 5 day response target, failed to keep adequate records of police discussions or follow up actions, and closed cases without explanation. It also did not show that it fully assessed whether ongoing noise met the threshold for “persistent” ASB, nor did it demonstrate that it considered alternative interventions such as mediation or speaking with other residents. These gaps meant it was not consistently applying its policy or giving the resident clear, evidence based decisions.
16. By late 2023 and early 2024, the landlord’s evidence concerning its actions in response to reported ASB had further declined. It did not complete a risk assessment or action plan until new reports in January and March 2024, despite its policy requiring early and ongoing assessment. Even after identifying a moderate risk and consulting police, it still did not show how it evaluated the evidence or determined whether further action was needed. These omissions left the resident uncertain about the landlord’s approach and undermined confidence in how it was applying its ASB policy.
17. During the latter half of the 2023 the resident asked to move because of the impact of the stress and anxiety on her health condition. The landlord said the evidence did not meet the council’s criteria for an urgent move but confirmed she had an active housing application, was bidding, and had access to other rehousing schemes. It signposted her to the council for further support and explained her mutual exchange options. It also responded to enquiries from other support agencies. Overall, it acted reasonably in outlining her housing options and signposting her for support.
18. While this was positive, the landlord did not identify any failings in how it handled the resident’s reports between 2021 and 2024, so it did not take steps to put things right or learn from the complaint. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings we found, we have awarded £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the level of failing.

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), applicable from April 2024, was in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 2 working days. It responded at stage 1 within 3 working days. This was compliant with the respective 5 and 10 working day timescales in the Code.
21. We understand the landlord told the resident that it would not agree to progress her escalation request. The Code requires landlords to escalate a complaint to stage 2 if any part of it remains unresolved to the resident’s satisfaction. It also states that residents should not have to explain why they want a stage 2 review. The landlord’s complaint policy does not appear to comply with this because it reserves the right to decline escalating complaints when certain conditions are met, such as a lack of new evidence or repeating issues already considered. If the resident asks to escalate her complaint, the landlord must do so unless a valid exclusion applies under its policy.
22. We consider the landlord failed to follow the Code because it did not appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint or alternatively explain why a valid exclusion applied. However, there is no evidence the resident suffered any detriment related to this. This is because even if the landlord had escalated the complaint, we cannot be certain this would have changed its position. And its decision did not prevent or delay her from bringing the complaint to us.
23. Therefore, although we have made a finding of service failure, we have not made any orders relating to this. The landlord should review its complaint policy to ensure it considers escalation requests in line with the Code.

Learning

24. The case highlights that the landlord needs to apply its ASB policy consistently, ensure clear rationale when deciding whether behaviour meets ASB thresholds, and take a more structured multiagency approach where relevant.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent, with missing information about police discussions, unclear follow up actions, and gaps in documenting risk assessments.

Communication

26. Communication with the resident lacked clarity at times, particularly around why certain decisions were made, what evidence was required for further action, and whether tenancy management measures such as sensitive lets had been agreed.