Abri Group Limited (202406701)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. Since November 2022, she has reported persistent noise from the flat above. She says the landlord failed to take effective action, gave inconsistent information, and delayed its responses. She also highlighted the impact on her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise transference.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and noise transference.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not adapt its approach for the resident’s needs. There were delays in its contact and the landlord provided inconsistent information. It did not complete a risk assessment or action plan, refer the resident to partner agencies, or consider mediation.
5. There was a delay on the landlord sending its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable and contrary to its complaint policy.

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.

6. The resident has reported ongoing noise from the flat above since August 2022, initially as antisocial behaviour (ASB). She has ADHD and repeatedly told the landlord the noise affected her mental health. She also said she left the property for up to a month because of it.
7. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will act with empathy and fairness, support both parties, and encourage mediation where appropriate. It will work with other agencies, assess vulnerability, and refer residents to support services with consent. The policy prioritises safety and well-being, maintaining regular contact, and managing expectations by explaining what it does not consider to be ASB and advising on self-resolution.
8. The landlord first asked the resident to record noise on diary sheets to show the type of noise and frequency. The resident said her ADHD made this difficult. Asking for diary sheets was reasonable because the landlord needed evidence.
9. However, the landlord did not adjust its approach after learning about her ADHD, as its policy requires. This is a failure. The landlord did not make reasonable adjustments, potentially increasing stress and making it harder for her to provide evidence.
10. In September 2022, the landlord called the neighbour and followed up with the resident, who said the noise improved. This was reasonable, as it shows that the landlord was working with both parties to try to resolve the issue.
11. The resident reported noise again in November 2022. The landlord repeated its diary sheet request. The resident emailed dates and times of incidents. The landlord has not shown it considered these reports. This is a failure as the landlord did not use the information provided by the resident to investigate the issue or support her.
12. The resident sent video recordings as evidence. The landlord said it could not access them and asked for a different format. She said she did not know how. The landlord did not try another way to view the videos, such as visiting the resident. Since it repeatedly asked for evidence, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made more effort to access the videos.
13. The landlord suggested using the Noise app and the resident asked for help setting it up. The landlord then said she must complete diary sheets first to confirm a noise issue. This unclear communication is a failure. It left the resident unsure on the correct process.
14. In January 2023, the property’s defects period ended. A contractor inspected but did not carry out a sound test, relying on tests done before handover. The landlord said this showed the building met soundproofing standards. The contractor found no soundproofing defect but did not test for it. The landlord’s evidence only shows the building met standards at handover, not that there were no noise issues later.
15. On 30 March 2023, the resident told the landlord she was asking the local authority for a home move. She requested a letter confirming the noise issues. There is no evidence the landlord replied. The resident was taking steps to improve her situation by looking for another property. The lack of support from the landlord was unreasonable.
16. In August 2023, the landlord reopened the case and again asked for diary sheets. The resident said she had already provided them, but the landlord said it had not received any. We have no evidence she submitted them.
17. The resident emailed saying the landlord told her the case was now a priority because the neighbour had flooring instead of carpet. The landlord said it would visit the neighbour. On 24 August 2023, it reported the visit was unsuccessful and promised an update. Visiting the neighbour was reasonable, but the landlord could have checked sooner. It spoke to the neighbour in September 2022 and could have asked about flooring then. Its failure to do so led to delays in it identifying the likely cause of the noise issues.
18. After this, the landlord failed to update the resident. It visited the neighbour in but did not inform her. She requested updates in September and October 2023, but the landlord did not respond. This lack of communication is a failure, which meant that the resident was unaware of what action, if any, the landlord was taking.
19. Statutory guidance under the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 says landlords should assess harm and vulnerability when receiving ASB complaints and update risk assessments regularly. The guidance encourages landlords to consider whether ASB is having “a cumulative effect” on a residents mental or physical well-being.
20. The landlord says it did not complete risk assessments because the resident did not provide evidence. This was a failure. It should have assessed risk when the resident first reported the issue and updated it as the case progressed. A risk assessment would have helped the landlord understand and support the resident’s needs.
21. The landlord also failed to refer the resident to other agencies as its policy requires. It only referred her to environmental health after its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable as there may have been other resources available to support the resident.
22. The policy says the landlord should consider mediation. It did not because the resident was anxious about the neighbour knowing she reported the noise. However, it could have explained the process and benefits. Its failure to do so was unreasonable, as this was another possible avenue the landlord could take to resolve the resident’s concerns.
23. The resident complained in January 2024. In its responses, the landlord said the resident provided limited evidence despite requests for diary sheets. It admitted giving wrong advice about visiting the neighbour but did not uphold the rest of the complaint. These responses were unreasonable because the landlord did not identify the delays, poor communication, and failures to follow policy.
24. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy or statutory guidance. It failed to make reasonable adjustments after learning the resident had ADHD, continuing to insist on diary sheets for over a year. It ignored alternative evidence like emails and recordings, did not assist with the noise app, and made no effort to access videos.
25. Communication was poor, with delays and missed updates, and it did not respond when the resident asked for a support letter to help her move. The landlord delayed checking the neighbour’s flooring and failed to complete risk assessments or refer the resident to support agencies. It also did not explain or consider mediation. In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to acknowledge these shortcomings, including its lack of support and repeated delays.
26. These failures had a significant effect on the resident. She reported that the noise affected her mental health and caused her to leave the property for extended periods. The landlord’s lack of reasonable adjustments increased the burden on her, given her ADHD. Delays and poor communication left her uncertain and forced her to chase updates. The absence of risk assessments and referrals meant the landlord did not address her vulnerabilities.
27. We find that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident compensation of £400 for its failures in handling her reports of ASB and noise transference. The landlord should pay this directly to the resident.
29. Since its stage 2 response, the landlord has offered to provide the resident with a dictaphone to record the noise and introduced a new noise procedure. These are positive steps.
30. Considering these steps, we have ordered the landlord to open a new noise case, complete a risk assessment, and action plan, and provide a Dictaphone to the resident. The action plan should set out the steps to investigate the noise, expectations on the resident, and any support the landlord can provide to help gather evidence.
31. In October 2022, we published a Spotlight report about noise complaints. It says landlords do not have to soundproof homes beyond the building standards in place at the time of construction, in line with the government’s building regulations. However, we encourage landlords to take reasonable steps to reduce noise.

32. The landlord’s customer relations procedure requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days, with extensions allowed if it informs the resident. These timescales align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
33. On 19 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and confirmed a 20-day response time. On 14 March, it extended the deadline to 3 April 2024. There was no further contact until the resident chased for an update on 30 April 2024.
34. The landlord did not respond until 29 May 2024, when it issued its stage 2 response and apologised for the delay, citing a backlog. It offered £100 compensation.
35. The delay and lack of updates were unreasonable. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed, forcing her to chase for updates without response.
36. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered reasonable compensation. We find there was reasonable redress and have not ordered further action. We recommend the landlord confirm in writing that it paid the £100 compensation offered to the resident in its stage 2 response.

Learning

37. The landlord should reinforce its ASB policy requirements, including risk assessments, referrals to support agencies, and mediation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord should ensure records show consideration of residents’ vulnerabilities and any adjustments made.
39. It should have mechanisms in place to track complaint timescales and extensions to avoid missed deadlines and gaps in communication.

Communication

40. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent. The landlord should keep residents updated throughout investigations and complaint handling. It should respond promptly to requests for updates or support.
41. The landlord should give clear instructions when requesting evidence and explain alternative options if residents face difficulties.