Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202514673)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner and children. Both the resident and her partner have reported ASB from a neighbouring property (‘the neighbour’). For the purposes of this report the resident and her partner are referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB

4. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It investigated and took proportionate action. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate. It did not always acknowledge it had reviewed videos and recordings the resident sent. It did not provide a timely explanation of the Section 21 process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord followed its complaints 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.

What we have not considered

6. It is not our role to decide if ASB took place or who was responsible. Our assessment considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s report. It does not, however, list every report made by the resident or detail every action taken by the landlord.
7. The resident said she wanted the landlord to move the neighbour. We have explained to the resident this is not an outcome we can provide.

What we have considered

8. On 9 September 2024 the resident reported noise nuisance from their neighbour’s property. The landlord’s ASB policy confirmed noise nuisance was ASB. It said the landlord would deal with reports promptly and carry out risk assessments. The landlord responded on 16 September 2025, which was 2 working days after the timeframe required by its policy. It did not carry out a risk assessment.
9. The landlord subsequently visited the resident and the neighbour. It issued a verbal warning to the neighbour on 26 September 2024. Following further noise reports, the landlord gave the resident a mobile number to send noise recordings and issued a written warning to the neighbour on 1 October 2024. The landlord followed its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s reports.
10. The resident made several more noise reports in October 2024. The landlord notified the neighbour she had breached her tenancy. It documented actions and interventions it had agreed with the neighbour to stop the noise nuisance.
11. The resident submitted video and recordings in December 2024 and January 2025. The landlord did not confirm it had viewed these.
12. On 13 January 2025 the landlord assigned the case to its ‘community safety team’. It told the resident it was considering legal action against the neighbour. It said it was for a court to decide a person should be removed from their home. The resident explained about ongoing noise issues and the effect on her family. After the call the landlord sent an action plan to the resident. It has not sent us a copy the action plan.
13. On 20 January 2025 the landlord served a Section 21 notice to the neighbour. The landlord followed its new ASB policy (January 2025) and explained to the neighbour she had the right to request a review. Although it had previously told the resident it was considering legal action, it did not explain the Section 21 process to her.
14. On 29 January 2025 the landlord acknowledged receipt of video and pictures. The resident reported noise and parking issues. The landlord followed it policy and confirmed the parking issues were not ASB. The landlord did not subsequently confirm it had viewed the videos.
15. On 30 January 2025 the landlord provided the neighbour with soundproofing material for a child’s bedroom. It said the soundproof pads were installed in February 2025.
16. On 13 February 2025 the landlord confirmed receipt of recordings the resident made between 30 January and 10 February 2025. The resident asked how long the neighbour would remain at the property. The landlord said the court would decide if the neighbour could be evicted. It said if the ASB improved over the next 2 months the neighbour could continue to live at the property.
17. Following counter allegations by the neighbour the landlord issued a verbal warning to the resident on 24 February 2025. The landlord offered mediation, which the resident declined.
18. On 7 March 2025 the landlord made a weekly monitoring call to the resident. It spoke with the resident on 11 March 2025, and she confirmed the local authority had closed the noise monitoring case. The landlord said if the noise was continuing it could provide diary sheets. The landlord followed its policy and confirmed it did not consider children playing to be ASB.
19. The landlord made a monitoring call to the resident on 17 March 2025 and spoke with her on 20 March 2025. It told the resident the landlord would not seek possession of the neighbour’s property, but the Section 21 notice would remain in place and would be kept under review. The landlord agreed to visit the resident on 2 April 2025 to collect recordings of noise from the neighbour’s property and said it would contact the local authority about the noise monitoring.
20. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 March 2025. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it had ongoing fortnightly communication with the resident, offered mediation, identified a company to do sound testing, attended multi-agency meetings and awarded the resident ‘gold band status’ so she could bid on alternative properties.
21. On 25 April 2025 the landlord completed a risk assessment. This identified the case to be ‘high risk’.
22. The resident and landlord attended a case review meeting on 8 May 2025. At the meeting the landlord explained the Section 21 process. After the meeting the landlord emailed the resident. It restated that parking issues were not ASB and said it would contact the resident every 2 weeks about her case. It asked the resident to only record incidents when they happened and said it would continue to review if possible legal action against the neighbour.
23. On 19 May 2025 the landlord received the sound insulation testing results. The report said the sound of human speech transferred between the 2 properties. It recommended the landlord act to mitigate transference. The landlord said it subsequently investigated soundproofing measures.
24. Between 21 May 2025 and 2 June 2025, the resident sent videos and recordings. The landlord confirmed these had been reviewed. It issued a verbal warning to the neighbour after her child threw a ball at a car.
25. On 13 June 2025 the landlord asked if the resident would like to be referred to victim support. The resident declined.
26. On 18 June 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the case had not progressed since a new caseworker took over in January 2025. She said the landlord said the neighbour should be evicted, but the neighbour was still living next door.
27. On 27 June 2025 the landlord confirmed it had viewed the most recent videos the resident sent. It said she should record and report any further noise nuisance.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it agreed an action plan with the resident in January 2025. It said the action plan included fortnightly updates, although sometimes it made weekly calls. It confirmed it had viewed the videos the resident sent and would continue to do so. It said it would not replace the staff member handling the case and said it was not currently looking to evict the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged the resident felt there had been no progress. It said it was working with partner agencies to resolve issues and would provide fortnightly updates.
29. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It followed its ASB policy, investigated and took proportionate action against the neighbour. However, its communication with the resident was inadequate. It did not always acknowledge it had reviewed videos and recordings and was unclear about the frequency of updates. It also failed to clearly explain the Section 21 process in a timely manner. This meant the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and to pay £100 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failing in the service provided by the landlord.

30. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says if additional time is needed to provide a response the landlord will agree this with the resident. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
31. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 March 2025. On 18 March 2025 it told the resident it needed additional time to send its stage 1 response. It sent its response on 26 March 2025. The landlord followed its complaints policy.
32. On 18 June 2025 the resident escalated her complaint.
33. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 19 June 2025. It sent its stage 2 response on 27 June 2025. The landlord followed the timelines in its complaints policy.
34. We have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord did not send us a copy of the action plan it agreed with the resident in January 2025.

Communication

36. The landlord did not explain the Section 21 process to the resident. It did not manage the resident’s expectations of this process.