From 13 January 2026, we will 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.

BHT Sussex (202317705)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317705

BHT Sussex

27 February 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 of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a studio flat situated in a block.
  2. On 17 January 2022,the resident reported noise nuisance and threatening behaviour from one of his neighbours (‘the neighbour’).
  3. It is not clear from the evidence who contacted the local environmental health team. However, an email dated 15 March 2022 suggests that it was aware of the issue. The environmental health team attempted to contact the resident to arrange for an independent witness to attend the property. It was unsuccessful, so closed its case. It wrote to the resident and provided him with advice. It also wrote to the the neighbour asking them to minimise the disturbance.
  4. On 24 March 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the neighbour. The contact number it had was incorrect, so it sent a letter outlining the allegation and reminding them of their tenancy obligations.
  5. The landlord’s records show that a further incident was reported by the resident at the start of June 2022. The notes state that “objects” were allegedly thrown at the resident’s window, but there was no evidence to support this.
  6. The resident reported 4 further incidents between 24 June 2022 and 29 June 2022. These comprised 2 reports of loud music being played in the early hours of the morning and 2 reports of “missiles” being thrown at the resident’s window. The resident also reported these incidents to the police. The evidence shows that the landlord and the police were in communication regarding this.
  7. Throughout March 2023 the resident completed several diary sheets spanning a 4-week period. The diary sheets detailed noise disturbances caused by “gaming and music”. The resident also expressed the impact that this was having on him, stating that it was “preventing him from sleeping and ruining his health”.
  8. On 9 May 2023, the landlord served an eviction notice on the neighbour.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 June 2023. He said:
    1. He had been subjected to loud music and gaming sounds from the neighbour above, often until 4am. In addition, he had had missiles thrown at his windows, glue in his keyhole, and received verbal threats.
    2. He had made numerous reports to the landlord, but its interventions only had a short-term effect.
    3. The police had been contacted on at least 5 occasions but the ASB continued.
    4. He had received a letter from the landlord stating that the problem “had been dealt with”, but this contained no explanation of how it had been dealt with.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023. It said that while it was sympathetic to the situation that the resident had faced over a period of time, it had taken reasonable and proportionate action throughout the case. It said that the case had now progressed, and it was “taking the most robust tenancy action possible against several perpetrators within the block”.
  11. The resident felt that his concerns had been dismissed, and he escalated his complaint on 24 July 2023. He said that he had been to see his GP and that he would consider legal action against the landlord.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 August 2023. It empathised with the time expended by the resident in connection with the ASB, but explained that gathering evidence could be a lengthy process.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. In resolution, he wanted the ASB to be resolved and financial compensation for the distress the situation had caused him.
  14. In recent communication with this Service, the resident has informed us that the neighbour is still living in the block. He said he understands that the landlord is taking legal action, but he has been given no definitive timescales. He told us the noise nuisance is intermittent. The resident has also reported that he now suffers with “ringing in his ears”, and he believes that this is a result of the of the prolonged noise nuisance he has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident stated the impact he believed the ASB – in particular the noise nuisance – was having on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, we are unable to establish a causal link between the ASB and any impact these may have had on the resident’s health. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages (including damage to health) is more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

ASB reports

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether the resident was subjected to ASB or nuisance, but rather to assess how the landlord responded to his reports. This includes whether the landlord acted reasonably, proportionately, and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it recognises ASB can have a “very negative impact on people and communities” and that it is “committed to tackling it in a responsive and robust way by working with tenants and other agencies to prevent, support and enforce where necessary”.
  3. The ASB policy says that, following a report, the landlord will determine the priority of the case and inform the resident of this. Priority case types and response times are as follows:
    1. Priority 1 – Serious cases such as hate crime, assault or violence, threats, and arson (1 working day).
    2. Priority 2 – Less serious cases such as intimidation or harassment, sustained noise nuisance, drug use, and verbal abuse (5 working days).
    3. Priority 3 – Minor cases such as pet nuisance, minor noise, and neighbour disputes (10 working days).
  4. The policy goes on to say the landlord will then complete an action plan and a risk assessment with the reporting party. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the priority level when it opened its first ASB case in January 2022. We have also seen no evidence that it completed an action plan or risk assessment. This means that the landlord has not evidenced that it followed its policy in assessing the risks using its assessment to decide on the interventions it would make. This was unsatisfactory.
  5. Following the resident’s reports of ASB and alleged threats, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity, as set out in its procedure, and to discuss the allegations with the police. Had it done so, it may have formed a better appreciation of the impact on the resident as well as an understanding of the risk.
  6. Alack of thorough case notes relating to the reports of ASB makes it difficult to assess how quickly the landlord responded to each report and the timescale within which it progressed matters. Due to the nature of the initial report, the case should have been given priority 1 status (threats) and responded to with the required urgency. Either the landlord’s record keeping is inadequate, or all documentation relating to this case has not been provided as requested by this Service. This evidences a record keeping failure which has been assessed separately below.
  7. The evidence shows that the environmental health team became involved in March 2022 in relation to the noise nuisance. We are unable to determine if the resident reported the matter directly or if the landlord enlisted the team’s help. However, utilising the services of environmental health is a useful tool when dealing with noise nuisance and gathering evidence. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of noise so as to decide whether the noise is a statutory nuisance, and to inspect their area to detect any statutory nuisance. In this case, the environmental health team was unable to contact the resident, so the case was closed and referred back to the landlord.
  8. If the landlord had continued to engage with the environmental health team, this may have led to the council installing noise monitoring equipment. In the absence of this, the landlord relied solely on the resident to provide evidence of the noise. There is also no evidence that it considered the use of a noise app or its own noise monitoring equipment in an attempt to obtain evidence. Had it done so, it may have been able to evidence and address the issue more swiftly. Its omission to explore alternative investigative avenues was therefore unreasonable.
  9. There is also no evidence available that the landlord contacted the neighbour until 24 March 2022, 9 weeks after the resident’s initial report. This was an inappropriate delay. Therefore, the landlord failed in its obligations and did not apply its own policies and procedures.
  10. The case notes state that attempts to telephone the neighbour were made but the contact details were out of date. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out a home visit, write to the neighbour, and/or invite them in for an interview to discuss the allegations at the earliest opportunity. The landlord has informed this Service that attempts to visit were made but the neighbour refused to engage. We have seen no evidence of how many attempts were made, therefore we are unable to determine if the landlord took reasonable steps.
  11. The case timeline suggests that there was a significant gap in the resident’s ASB reports between June 2022 and March 2023. In the absence of any reports being made to the landlord, there are limited steps it could reasonably take to investigate or implement practical measures to address the issues during this period.
  12. Following further reports from the resident in March 2023, he provided comprehensive diary sheets spanning a 4-week period. These evidenced the ASB he was experiencing and the impact it was having on him. A landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB, such as an injunction or eviction, without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to request diary entries. The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally – such as through mediation or tenancy warnings – before taking legal action. The landlord should also work with other agencies such as the police and it appears it has done so in this case. At this stage the landlord appropriately sought to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
  13. Despite taking positive action in May 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident informed of progress throughout the case. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, who had to chase the landlord for updates throughout. While it is appropriate for a landlord not to discuss matters relating to another resident’s tenancy, it would have been reasonable for it to offer some reassurance that it was following its relevant procedure and progressing the issue. The landlord missed opportunities to provide this reassurance in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
  14. The resident remains dissatisfied about the time taken to resolve to the ASB. Since issuing the neighbour with an eviction notice in May 2023, the matter remains ongoing around 21 months later. It is recognised that legal enforcement action can take a considerable amount of time, and that some delays may be outside the landlord’s control. However, the landlord has failed to acknowledge the detrimental impact that this delay has had on the resident. It would also have been appropriate for it to consider support it could offer him during the intervening period.
  15. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report in a timely manner in accordance with its policies and procedures. It did not adequately investigate his reports, interview the neighbour, communicate any action plans, or provide any reassurance to the resident that the matter was being fully investigated. These failures led to an unreasonable delay and missed opportunities to resolve the issue at an early stage. Although the landlord eventually took proportionate and reasonable actions to resolve the ASB, the matter remains ongoing 37 months after the resident’s initial report. These failures amount to maladministration.
  16. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out a tariff of awards, but this amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Record keeping

  1. As set out in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 27 above, there were significant gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records of events relating to this complaint. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted appropriately in line with its obligations, or that it kept the resident reasonably updated throughout. Given the failings identified in this case and the resulting impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide to the resident a written apology for its delays and other failures identified in this report. Its letter should also acknowledge the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failures in handling his reports of ASB.
    3. Meet with the resident to agree a timebound action plan in relation to any ongoing ASB or neighbour issues. This should include an allocated point of contact, regular updates to the resident, a regularly reviewed internal risk assessment, and an offer of relevant support.