Abri Group Limited (202509637)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a communal building. He complained that the landlord was not effectively responding to his reports of noise from a neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise by a neighbour.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise by a neighbour.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise by a neighbour

4. The landlord did not respond to reports of noise in line with its policy. Although it acknowledged its failings when reviewing the case, it did not do so within its complaints process.

Complaint

5. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. It failed to acknowledge this in its final response.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the noise on his health due to sleep deprivation. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness caused via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The resident told the landlord, on 21 October 2024, that the level of noise coming from a neighbouring property was unacceptable. It wrote to neighbouring residents asking them to be mindful of the volume of their televisions, particularly at night. While this was a positive step, it did not provide him with diary sheets to record details of the incidents so that it could assess the issue further. This was not in line with its ASB policy in place at the time.
8. That said, in November 2024, the landlord responded to further noise reports and provided diary sheets to complete over two weeks. It also provided details of the local environmental health team and a ‘Dear Neighbour’ card to encourage resolution between residents. The landlord opened an ASB case, although its policy required it to review completed diary sheets and evidence before doing so.
9. The resident made 3 more reports of noise to the landlord between 23 December 2024 and 23 January 2025. Despite being aware of his contact, as it had not received his completed diary sheets it closed the ASB case. Given the resident continued to report the problem, it should have responded and explained why it needed evidence to act and clarified its process. Its failure to do this likely frustrated the resident and harmed their relationship.
10. The evidence shows that following further reports from the resident in March 2025, the landlord took proportionate action in line with its policy. This included conducting home visits with him and other residents to discuss the matter and issuing diary sheets so that it could review the situation.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response outlined actions taken to address the resident’s noise reports. It appropriately acknowledged concerns about his neighbour’s welfare that he had raised. It noted it was unable to discuss this further to maintain confidentiality and set out its commitment to tenant wellbeing. However, it did not acknowledge failures to follow its ASB policy between October 2024 and January 2025, instead concluding there had been no service failures in its approach.
12. The resident provided his completed diary sheets and recordings of noise to the landlord on 8 May 2025. The landlord reviewed this and advised him on 21 May 2025 that it would not be opening an ASB case. It said the evidence submitted constituted normal living noise and its housing team would review any further reports. Although we are aware the resident was unhappy with this decision, the landlord acted in line with its policy. It communicated its decision on the matter clearly and within a reasonable timeframe.
13. The landlord’s final response was comprehensive. It detailed the action it had taken to address the reports of noise, as well as a summary of its communication with the resident. It set out that it would manage any further reports as part of its newly developed “noise transference process” and set out how the resident could submit any new evidence. However, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge the failures that had taken place earlier in the case.
14. Following our contact with the landlord it conducted a review of the case and shared its findings with the resident. It acknowledged its failure to follow its ASB policy and apologised. It also apologised for its failure to effectively to identify its failings during its complaint process. It offered £250 compensation.
15. Although these actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord did not identify its failings during its complaint process and until the complaint was brought to us. Our guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated any specific learning points to ensure similar failings do not occur in future. That said, its compensation offer was reasonable and within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. We have, therefore, made an order for it to pay this to the resident.

16. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within its complaint policy timescale. It requested an extension to respond at stage 1 as it needed more time to investigate. It sent its response within the stated timeframe.
18. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 May 2025. He chased the landlord for an update on 21 May 2025. Its records show it did not log the escalation request until 16 May 2025 which was not in line with its policy timescale. It failed to acknowledge this delay, apologise or offer redress. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the time and trouble the delay caused.

Learning

19. The landlord should ensure that it refers to the approach set out in its policies when assessing its actions in complaint investigations. This will enable it to respond to complaints effectively and identify learning it can adapt within its processes.

Communication

20. The landlord failed to communicate its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations and that it keeps them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.