Sandbourne Housing Association (202531664)

Decision
Case ID	202531664
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sandbourne Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

1. The resident had reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour and others in the area over several years to the landlord. In August 2025, she complained it had not taken enough action to deal with these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a)     Reports of ASB.

b)     Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

5. The landlord’s response outlined the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. These actions were clearly evidenced and were in line with its ASB policy. It managed her expectations about what action it could take and offered to work with other agencies to support her.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 105 working days after the complaint. While it had some justification, including initially treating ASB reports as service requests, it did not explain this approach to the resident.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to reflect the complaint handling failures identified in this determination. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 August 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her multiple ASB reports involving her neighbour and other unknown people in the neighbourhood. She said it had failed to deal with these issues sufficiently and this was impacting her health and wellbeing.
25 October 2025	The resident contacted us to say she had not yet received a stage 1 complaint response from her landlord. We contacted it to ask for an update.
December 2025	The landlord informed us it had treated the complaint as a service request instead. It said this was in line with its complaints policy. It also explained it had considered the points the resident raised in a prior complaint.
6 January 2026	We asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response by 27 January 2026.
15 January 2026	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It listed all the actions it had recently taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it said she had not provided sufficient evidence to support her reports and without this it was limited in any further action it could take.
16 January 2026	The resident escalated her complaint.
6 February 2026	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated that it had taken all the action it could despite insufficient evidence to support the resident’s reports. It explained it would be able to take further action should she be able to provide clear evidence supporting her claims.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord’s response failed to address all the ASB issues she had reported to it. She also said she had provided sufficient evidence to support her reports but the landlord still failed to take sufficient action. She wanted it to either move her or soundproof her property.

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. When the resident referred her complaint to us she said she had experienced ASB issues from multiple neighbours for several years. She had referred a prior complaint she made to her landlord about this issue to us and we issued our findings under case number 202324398 on 4 June 2024.
8. This report will not consider events included in our former determination. For clarity, this determination will consider events around the time she made her new complaint in August 2025 up until February 2026, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.

What we did investigate

9. The resident complained the landlord was not taking enough action in response to her reports of ASB. She reported ongoing noise disturbance, verbal abuse and intimidation from her neighbour. She also said unknown individuals were entering her property without permission and also interfering with her bins. She felt it had taken no action despite the evidence she provided.
10. In response, the landlord said it had taken some action following the resident’s ASB reports, including speaking to the neighbour, installing CCTV outside her property and getting both parties to sign a good neighbour agreement. It also said it had liaised with the local council’s environmental health team, which had recently installed noise monitoring equipment in her property, to try and substantiate the reported noise issue.
11. However, the landlord said it did not have sufficient evidence to support the resident’s claims and without this it was unable to take further action. It explained what evidence it needed, how she could provide this and also offered her ongoing support, including working with other agencies with her permission.
12. The landlord’s response was reasonable. The actions it said it had already taken to try and deal with the reported ASB are supported by the evidence. Also, the actions it took were in line with its ASB policy, which said it may try and take early intervention steps such as informally speaking to an alleged perpetrator and getting both parties to sign good neighbour agreements.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy explains the landlord needs sufficient evidence before it can take further action. It reviewed all the evidence she submitted to it and upon review found no clear evidence to support her claims. It was therefore reasonable for it to say her reports did not support more formal action. It was also appropriate to liaise with the council’s environmental health team, which had installed noise monitoring equipment, to seek further evidence. When this also did not identify clear issues, it supported the landlord’s position.
14. The landlord responded appropriately to reports that unknown individuals were accessing the resident’s property. It had installed CCTV with her permission and when she reported incidents it reviewed footage for the reported dates and times. It said this did not provide evidence to support her claims and that it could not take further action.
15. The landlord also showed concern for the resident’s wellbeing and offered, with her consent, to work with other agencies to provide support. This was in line with its ASB policy.
16. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate. The actions it took are supported by the evidence and in line with its ASB policy. It clearly outlined why it was unable to take further action and what evidence it needed her to provide it in order to consider other actions.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

17. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. There were failings in how the landlord handled the resident’s stage 1 complaint. After she complained in August 2025, it contacted her about the ASB reports but did not issue a formal response. In December 2025, we asked the landlord to respond after the resident sought our help.
19. In response, the landlord told us it had treated the resident’s August 2025 complaint as an ASB report. However, it did not explain this approach to the resident or tell her it would not issue a stage 1 response, which was a failing. We advised it in January 2026 to respond, which it did on 15 January 2026. This was 105 working days after she made her complaint.
20. While its approach was allowed under its policy, it should have explained this to the resident at the time. Its failure to do so caused confusion and frustration, and it did not acknowledge this in its response.
21. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its lack of communication surrounding its handling of her stage 1 complaint to reflect the frustration caused and the time and trouble she took to then chase a response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Overall the landlord had robust records relating to the resident’s complaint and surrounding ASB reports. This included clear records of internal and external communications and reviews of the resident’s evidence.

Communication

23. As mentioned above, the landlord failed to clearly explain its complaint handling approach to the resident at stage 1. The landlord is reminded to ensure it keeps in regular contact with residents during the complaints process and clearly explains any actions it takes, such as treating a complaint as a service request instead. For further guidance, it can review our communication spotlight report.