From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Accent Housing Limited (202340007)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340007

Accent Housing Limited

26 March 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about dogs barking at a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. She lives with her partner and 2 daughters under the age of 4. The property is a mid-terrace.
  2. From late 2020 the resident began making reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) against her immediate neighbour. The reports included parking disputes, rubbish being thrown into her garden, harassment, and racial abuse. The resident also made reports of the neighbour’s dogs barking for long periods or at unsociable hours.
  3. Between October 2020 and January 2023 the landlord collected evidence and took a number of actions, such as writing to the neighbour. In January 2023 the landlord commenced legal action against the neighbour to obtain an injunction.
  4. A court hearing took place on 22 May 2023 and the neighbour made counter-allegations against the resident. The hearing was adjourned and the court recommended that both parties engage in mediation. This was accepted and the landlord arranged mediation.
  5. The landlord appointed a mediator who met with both the resident and her neighbour throughout June 2023. A “Good Neighbour Agreement” (the agreement) was drawn up and signed by both the resident and her neighbour on 6 July 2023. The agreement included a commitment by the neighbour to try and prevent their dogs from barking excessively and a commitment by the resident not to take any actions to provoke dog barking, such as banging on the walls.
  6. The landlord contacted both the resident and her neighbour frequently to monitor the situation. In calls with the landlord on 18 October 2023 and 6 November 2023 the resident made further reports of dogs barking.
  7. The resident approached this Service on 7 February 2024 with concerns about her landlord’s handling of the ASB. The resident was informed that the landlord’s complaints procedure should be exhausted before we could investigate.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2024, that the neighbour had breached the agreement, but that no action had been taken. She asked why the landlord had not spoken to her neighbour about the dogs barking despite recordings being sent to the landlord. She also complained that the neighbour had recently got a new dog without permission from the landlord. The resident sent further recordings of dogs barking on 28 February 2024 and 8 March 2024.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024. It responded to the resident’s concerns about its handling of the ASB case as a whole and concluded that it had done all it could, but was limited in what legal action it could take against the neighbour without further evidence. It added that due to the complaints the neighbour had made against the resident, it believed that continuing with mediation and continuing to work with appropriate external organisations would be the most appropriate action to take.
  10. On 26 March 2024 the resident and landlord exchanged emails in which the landlord explained that it could not discuss what permissions were or were not given to the neighbour with regard to their dogs. It explained that if it had evidence that the dogs were causing a nuisance, it would take action. It advised that although it had received numerous recordings from the resident, there was not enough evidence to prove a “persistent noise nuisance” was occurring. The landlord offered to escalate the resident’s concerns about the dog barking to stage 2 of the complaints procedure, which was accepted.
  11. On 19 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated that it could not discuss whether or not the neighbour had permission from the landlord to own the dogs. It repeated that it had reviewed the evidence and found that it did not amount to “clear evidence of a noise nuisance”. It said it would continue to keep in weekly contact with both parties and contact the resident to help resolve issues she was having with the noise recording software. It said it would canvass nearby residents about the ASB reports to corroborate the resident’s allegations and plan a joint visit with the police.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 23 April 2024, asked this Service to investigate. The resident wanted the dog barking to be resolved or to move to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident explained that the issues complained about in this case date back to 2020. However, the evidence shows that these issues were subject to court proceedings in May 2023. The proceedings resulted in a recommendation by the court that the landlord arrange mediation for the 2 parties. The evidence shows that proceedings were adjourned to allow time for mediation. As a result, we have determined that it would be unreasonable to investigate events prior to the landlord’s decision to refer the resident and her neighbour for mediation.
  2. Between February and May 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord was responding to the resident’s reports of dogs barking by including it in wider legal proceedings against the neighbour. At this time, it was reasonable to believe that this would be the most effective way to achieve the outcome the resident was seeking. These actions therefore were reasonable and have not been assessed further in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of dog barking at a neighbouring property

  1. Following the adjournment of court proceedings against the neighbour, it was reasonable that the landlord followed the advice of the court and sought to begin mediation. The landlord worked to obtain an agreement from both parties to engage in mediation. It then made the referral promptly, which was appropriate. The evidence shows that the mediator met with both the resident and neighbour on multiple occasions throughout June and July 2023. The agreement signed was robust and appropriately addressed the outstanding issues. The final draft of the agreement was put to both parties on or around 6 July 2023. Both parties had signed the agreement by 3 August 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that this timescale was unreasonable.
  2. The agreement contained a contingency plan which outlined the steps that would be taken if either party breached the agreement. It stated that for the first 6 weeks breaches should be reported to the mediator. After 6 weeks, it would be escalated to a landlord staff member who would act as a designated point of contact (DPOC). The evidence shows that this process was followed. In September 2023 (following reports of breaches unrelated to dog barking) a DPOC was appointed and took over the case.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted both the resident and neighbour frequently throughout this time to monitor the situation and request evidence to substantiate reports made. This was appropriate because, as it explained to the resident on 18 October 2023, it was unable to take legal action against the neighbour without sufficient supporting evidence.
  4. This was appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and make clear what evidence would be required if it were to consider taking further action. It explained that the evidence would need to demonstrate that the barking was “persistent” and a “nuisance”.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to assess the information available and to support the resident in obtaining better quality evidence. For example, by reviewing recordings sent by the resident on 6 November 2023 and later visiting the resident in an attempt to investigate her reports.
  6. The landlord had also repeatedly requested that the resident submit recordings via its dedicated “Noise App”. The resident had been having issues accessing the software. This presented challenges to the landlord in its attempts to prove that the noise was “persistent” or a “nuisance”. For example, it explained to the resident that the Noise App enabled a decibel reading to be taken when recording noise, which would help to support the resident’s claim that the volume of the dog barking was excessive and may have constituted a “nuisance”.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord had tried to assist the resident in resolving her issues accessing the technology, including by contacting the developer of the software. The evidence shows that the landlord needed a “screenshot of the error message”. The landlord requested this from the resident on several occasions but the resident did not appear to provide it. It was appropriate that the landlord continued to review recordings sent via WhatsApp in the meantime.
  8. The resident has since explained to this Service that she showed the error messages to the landlord’s staff members in person. She explained that both promised to follow up but did not. We have been unable to establish from the evidence when this occurred or what actions the landlord took. A recommendation has been made below to ensure that efforts to help the resident access the app are renewed.
  9. Although the landlord said it did not have the evidence available to take formal action, the evidence shows that it took informal action, such as contacting the neighbour to discuss the reports in November 2023. This was an appropriate step to take because it gave the landlord an opportunity to gather more information and to explore alternative options it could take to address the resident’s concerns.
  10. In the resident’s escalation request, she outlined the significant amount of evidence she had provided, which included video evidence in February and March 2024, and disputed the landlord’s position that it did not prove a “persistent nuisance” was occurring. She also complained about a perceived lack of action from the landlord. The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crime Policy states that in complex or serious cases of ASB, regional ASB Consultants will provide advice and support in managing ASB cases. The evidence shows that all evidence submitted had been assessed by an ASB consultant promptly upon being received. The consultant had advised that the evidence was not actionable.
  11. The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crime Policy sets out the process the landlord should follow in dealing with reports of ASB. The process involved interviewing both parties, completing a “risk matrix”, monitoring the case on a weekly basis, and employing several resources (such as using the Noise App) before it may ultimately consider legal action. The evidence shows that the landlord followed this process appropriately.
  12. It also lists the actions it may take in dealing with reports of ASB. This includes mediation, using an ASB consultant to compose a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’, and legal action. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to exercise all of these options in the period assessed. The evidence also shows that the landlord took informal action against the neighbour when it was appropriate to do so. However, it was not always appropriate to share all actions the landlord had taken with regard to the neighbour with the resident.
  13. While the resident may disagree with the conclusions drawn by the landlord, there is no evidence that it acted unreasonably by placing trust in the expertise and judgment of its specialists. It acted appropriately to improve the quality of the evidence collected, but had limited engagement from the resident in resolving issues in accessing the Noise App.
  14. Part of the resident’s complaint was about whether or not the landlord had given permission for the neighbour to have new dogs in the property. This Service is unable to provide specific details of actions the landlord has taken in relation to third parties. This is in accordance with data protection guidance and legislation. We have however investigated this element of the complaint. In assessing the landlord’s records of contact with the neighbour, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to follow its policies or procedures, and we have not found any failings in this regard.
  15. Although the landlord told the resident it could not share the details of its investigation into the neighbour’s permissions to keep pets, it explained to the resident that if the dogs are causing a nuisance and it had clear evidence of this, it would take appropriate actions. This position was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
  16. The policy also outlines that the landlord may engage external agencies. Some previous contact with the local authority (Environmental Health) resumed on 16 June 2023 when the resident and landlord agreed that having Noise Monitoring Equipment (NME) installed in the property may be beneficial. This was an appropriate and important step. The local authority may have been able to collect evidence to determine if the dog barking was amounting to a noise nuisance, upon which further action might be taken.
  17. The extent of any further involvement from the local authority after this point is unclear. The landlord’s website indicates that the resident should normally be the primary point of contact with the local authority. There is no evidence to suggest that this would have been inappropriate in this instance.
  18. In conclusion, the landlord took appropriate actions, in line with its policies and procedures. It dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and provided adequate advice to better help her collect the evidence required to take further action. In view of what is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of dog barking.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of dog barking at a neighbouring property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may choose take steps to assist the resident in restoring her access to the ‘noise app’.