Broxtowe Borough Council (202533547)

Decision
Case ID	202533547
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Broxtowe Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	2 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She reported ongoing noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour living above her, including loud music, frequent banging, and incidents of verbal abuse. She said the behaviour began when she moved into the property in April 2023 and has escalated over time, causing her to feel unsafe in her home. She has explained that the situation has had a significant impact on her physical and mental health and that she has PTSD, fibromyalgia and ME. She complained to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports and the handling of her subject access request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including noise disturbance.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request.
   3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including noise disturbance.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request is outside of jurisdiction.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including noise disturbance

4. The landlord took several reasonable steps when it investigated the resident’s reports of ASB. It directed her to record incidents using the NoiseApp, suggested mediation, installed noise monitoring equipment, and said it spoke to the neighbour. However, the landlord did not acknowledge 2 of the resident’s ASB reports within the required timescales. It also did not clearly address its position on the resident’s request for CCTV, or the diary entries the resident provided. These failures caused avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident but did not amount to the overall detriment required for a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request

5. This complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its complaint policy timescales. While it acknowledged the delay, it did not remedy this at either stage 1 or stage 2. We have not seen evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. These were service failures under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The delays did not cause significant detriment, but the landlord should have recognised and put right the areas where its service fell below standard.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing To the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £150, made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 May 2026
3	Contact the resident The landlord must contact the resident the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing any ASB and if so, the landlord should agree an action plan with the resident going forward, including timeframes for actions to be taken. The action plan must set out: the agreed frequency of updates a date for reviewing the plan the landlord’s position on what evidence it will accept its position in light of any risk assessment completed by the police, once this is confirmed its position on the resident’s soundproofing concerns, including whether this is a repair, design issue, or outside the ASB process its position on the resident’s request to install CCTV/cameras, confirming whether permission is granted, refused, or requires further information The landlord must provide a copy of the agreed action plan to both the resident and this Service by the due date. If the landlord decides to manage the resident’s reports outside its ASB policy, it must write to the resident to explain this decision and set out what actions it will take instead. It must also provide a copy of this letter to this Service by the due date.	No later than 05 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB since 2023. She said this included loud music, persistent banging on the ceiling at all hours, and incidents of shouting and verbal abuse. She said the situation had a significant impact on her physical and mental health. She said she no longer felt safe living in her home, particularly following incidents of verbal abuse on 14 and 15 June 2025 and had stayed away from the property. She raised concerns about the landlord’s response to the Subject Access Request (SAR) she submitted on 15 July 2025. She said she had requested access to all information she had provided as part of her ASB complaints, but the landlord had not provided it all. She also said the landlord had refused permission for her to install cameras inside her property for evidence gathering. She felt the council had failed in its duty of care to protect her and requested access to the evidence she had previously submitted.
19 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had opened an ASB case between 12 June and 3 September 2025, and that it had received 2 NoiseApp recordings during this period. 1 recording captured the neighbour shouting from his window. The neighbour told the landlord this was directed at his girlfriend, and the landlord said another neighbour supported this account. The landlord noted that it had not received further evidence from the resident and that she had told it she was often away from the property. It reiterated that it needed further evidence to progress any action. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident was getting support from Victim Care and Juno and that she had requested a banding review. The landlord said that it could not provide the audio recordings because they contained the personal data of others. It explained that the resident or her solicitor could request the information through its Legal Services team if needed. The landlord concluded that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and did not uphold the complaint.
2 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not considered the ASB case opened in 2023. She informed the landlord she had been staying away from the property due to fear of violence from her neighbour.
31 October 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord gave an overview of the ASB cases it had dealt with between 2023 and 2025 and explained the actions it took. It said it investigated each report by reviewing NoiseApp recordings, asking the resident for further evidence, installing noise‑monitoring equipment twice, and offering mediation. It said that none of the recordings showed evidence of noise nuisance, so it closed each ASB case on that basis. The landlord also said it had spoken to the neighbour about the shouting incident and that another neighbour supported the neighbour’s explanation. The landlord noted that the resident had only submitted 2 NoiseApp recordings during the most recent case and had not provided further evidence. The landlord repeated that it needed evidence before it could take tenancy action. It also noted that the resident was receiving support from other agencies and had asked for a banding review. On the SAR issue, the landlord explained it could not disclose audio recordings because they contained other people’s personal data. It concluded that it had acted appropriately and did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the ASB had continued. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her SAR. She also said the landlord had not supported her request to install a camera inside her property, which she felt she needed to gather evidence. She explained that she wanted to move home and that she often stayed away from the property because she felt unsafe. The resident told us that the situation had affected her mental health, including feeling suicidal, and that she believed the landlord was not doing enough to protect or support her.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

7.  The resident complained that the landlord’s Subject Access Request response did not include information she had previously submitted. This raises data issues, which fall properly within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. We do not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another complaint-handling body. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including noise disturbance.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

8. The resident said that the ASB she reported had affected her physical and mental health, and that this impact formed part of her request for a higher housing banding. While we recognise the difficulties the resident experienced, the landlord has provided evidence that it considered this request under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This was in its capacity as a local authority, not in its capacity as a landlord and we have not investigated this. Should the resident wish to complain about the decision of her housing banding she may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
9. The resident also provided information about how the ASB affected her wellbeing. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for her. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further.
10. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB or to determine if noise is a statutory disturbance. Rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.

What we have considered

11. The resident first reported to the landlord loud music and stomping on 28 June 2023, explaining the impact on her PTSD. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will log ASB cases within 1 working day and acknowledge them within 5 working days. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the case until 6 September 2023. The landlord’s final complaint response said the first ASB contact was 6 September 2023. It did not address this delay or its impact. This was a service failure.
12. Once it acknowledged the ASB reports, the landlord:
    1. provided diary sheets
    2. advised the resident to download and use the NoiseApp
    3. said it had spoken with the neighbour
    4. offered mediation
    5. explained that tools such as warning letters and legal action required evidence.

It took action in line with its ASB policy and showed it considered a range of options to help resolve the ASB reports. The landlord closed the case on 13 November 2023 on the basis that the parties had agreed to mediation. Although mediation did not take place, closing the case at that stage was reasonable, and the landlord confirmed to the resident that it could reopen the case.

13. The resident raised further concerns on 19 April 2024. She said her neighbour had declined mediation and that she was unable to submit NoiseApp reports while the case was closed. The landlord issued an acknowledgement letter on 26 April 2024, within its 5-day timescale. In response, the landlord:
    1. attempted to call the resident multiple times in May and June 2024
    2. discussed the resident’s continued difficulties with the NoiseApp
    3. agreed to install noise monitoring equipment on 7 June 2024
    4. collected the equipment on 20 June 2024

These actions showed a resolution focused approach and were consistent with the ASB policy, which states it may use noise monitoring where appropriate

14. The landlord closed the case on 24 June 2024. The landlord’s internal notes show its reasoning was that no noise nuisance was captured. The decision to close the case due to lack of evidence was reasonable.
15. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 May 2025 asking for it to reopen the ASB case. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed these concerns until 3 June 2025, when it told her to contact its tenancy team. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it opened the ASB case on 12 June 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay between 1 May and 12 June 2025, which was outside the timescales set out in its ASB policy. This was a service failure.
16. The resident continued to report noise, stamping, and a significant incident on 14 June 2025, when she recorded her neighbour shouting abuse from his window. The landlord’s final complaint response stated that the neighbour said he had been shouting at his girlfriend rather than the resident, and that another neighbour had verified this. It was appropriate that the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator and attempted to verify the incident.
17. The resident also supplied an ASB diary by email covering reports of noise and verbal abuse in May and June 2025. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that diary sheets are a valid form of evidence. However, in its complaint response, it focused solely on NoiseApp submissions and did not acknowledge the diary or explain why it was not sufficient. Given that the resident said she often struggled to use the NoiseApp, the diary evidence was relevant and should have been addressed by the landlord. The lack of clarity about what evidence the landlord would accept amounted to a service failure in communication and expectationsetting.
18. The resident raised concerns about inadequate soundproofing on several occasions, including in October and November 2023 and June 2025. She said that noise travelled easily through the ceiling and that this contributed to the impact of the reported ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord clarified its position on soundproofing or explained whether it considered this to be a repair, a building design issue, or something outside the scope of its ASB process. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not require it to improve sound insulation, it should still have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and set out its position clearly. Its failure to do so was a service failure in communication.
19. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord for permission to install a camera inside her property to help gather evidence of the behaviour she reported. The landlord sent her the relevant application form on 19 June 2025, but we have not seen evidence whether the resident submitted the form or what the landlord’s final decision was. When the resident later queried whether she still needed to apply, the landlord did not clarify its position or resend any decision. As a result, it is unclear what the landlord decided or communicated about her request. This lack of clarity was a service failure in communication.
20. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will consider vulnerability within the context of the case and work with relevant agencies to support victims. Across the 3 ASB cases, the landlord attempted to contact the resident several times, acknowledged her mental health concerns, and checked that she was receiving support from her GP. These were appropriate steps. While the landlord maintained its position that it required evidence before taking tenancy action, which was reasonable and consistent with its ASB policy, it did show awareness of the resident’s vulnerability and responded proportionately within the limits of what the policy allowed.
21. The landlord’s ASB policy also encourages partnership working. The landlord’s records show that it did engage with external organisations who were supporting the resident. For example, it responded to enquiries from agencies such as Victim Care, Age UK and other support workers, and provided signposting and updates when contacted by those organisations.
22. The landlord also said, in an email to the resident on 16 June 2025, that it had contacted the police to request further information about the resident’s reports and to discuss what protective actions or support might be appropriate. The resident reported that the police completed a risk assessment with her on 3 July 2025. She said the police would share it with the landlord. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of the content or outcome of any discussions with the police. In the absence of this information, we are unable to assess whether its multi‑agency working with the police was effective, or whether opportunities for coordinated action or risk management were missed.
23. Across the ASB cases, the landlord took several reasonable steps in line with its policy and used a range of methods to try and assist the resident. However, there were service failures that the landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint responses. These include delays in acknowledging the resident’s ASB reports and inconsistent explanations about what forms of evidence it would accept. This likely caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. We have awarded the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which states that awards of this level of compensation are appropriate where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged these failings or fully put them right.
24. As the resident has said that ASB is ongoing, we have made an order for the landlord to contact her about this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
26. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports dating back to 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord only considered events from 2025. This was a service failure. The landlord later remedied this in its stage 2 response, where it considered the earlier ASB reports.
27.  The resident complained to the landlord on 28 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 August 2025, 13 working days later, outside the 5-day timescale set out in its policy. On 28 August 2025 the landlord sent the resident an extension letter saying it was extending the timeframe by 10 working days and aimed to respond by 11 September 2025. However, it didn’t issue the response until 19 September 2025. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not offer compensation. This was a service failure.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 October 2025. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged this. The landlord responded on 31 October 2025, 1 day outside of the landlord’s 20 working day policy. This short delay did not cause overall detriment however the landlord did not offer compensation for its earlier delay at stage 1. This was a service failure that it should have put right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to put this right.

Learning

29. The landlord showed good practice by trying different approaches to investigate the resident’s reports and keeping in contact through calls and emails. These actions reflected a willingness to engage with the issues raised. However, the case also highlights areas for improvement. The landlord did not always acknowledge reports within policy timescales, and it did not consistently give clear explanations about what evidence it would accept or its position on matters such as soundproofing and CCTV. Strengthening communication and ensuring timely, transparent responses would help the landlord manage expectations and support residents more effectively

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord did not provide records for all the actions it said it took. Better record keeping of key investigative steps would help the landlord evidence its actions and support decision making.

Communication

31. The landlord delayed in acknowledging some of the resident’s ASB reports, and the landlord did not always give clear explanations about evidence expectations, or matters such as soundproofing and CCTV. However, the landlord’s records also show that it made regular attempts to keep her updated through calls and emails across all 3 ASB cases.