Canterbury City Council (202507819)

Decision
Case ID	202507819
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Canterbury City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

The resident reported their neighbour was noisy and the cause of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) since November 2024. They also reported the dividing fence between them and their neighbour was broken. They have a spinal condition and mental health issues. They were unsatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of ASB.
2. reports to repair the fence.
3. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports to repair the fence.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord had not responded to a report of ASB from the resident and responded late to another. There is no evidence it carried out follow-up contact about their reports, and it did not offer alternative evidence gathering methods when diary sheets were declined.

The resident’s reports to repair the fence

The landlord was not responsible to repair the fence, and it delayed communicating this to the resident. It recognised this and has committed to secure funding to replace the fence as a gesture of goodwill, which is reasonable to resolve this part of the complaint.

The complaint

The landlord had not met its stage 1 complaint response in time, did not set out an extension to respond, and had not set out learnings or compensation for the delay.

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 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 December 2025
3	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident about their ongoing reports of ASB. It then must consider its ASB policy and set out in writing to the resident the next steps. The landlord must provide us with a copy of this.	No later than 23 December 2025
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 23 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord provides evidence it has contacted the resident and provided an update about the funding and replacement of the fence.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 November 2024	The resident reported noise from their neighbour.
2 May 2025	The resident complained that the landlord had not resolved their reports of ASB since November 2024 and had not kept them updated with actions it was taking. They said their neighbour had damaged their fence. The resident had slept on their sofa to avoid noise from their neighbour, which impacted their mental health and spinal condition.
12 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
7 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It: apologised for the delay to respond to the complaint. encouraged the resident to engage with gathering evidence about their report of ASB. said it was not responsible for the resident’s fence but agreed to discuss replacing it. set out learnings from that in the future it would meet its own communication guidance and ASB policy. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and escalated their complaint. The landlord acknowledged this.
29 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It: said it had not responded to some ASB reports and apologised. had arranged a quote to replace the resident’s fence as a gesture of goodwill.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said that the landlord had not resolved the ASB and had not replaced the fence. They said the stress of the issue affected their immune system, and they still sleep on their sofa.

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 resident’s report of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord said it responded to the resident’s initial reports of ASB and delivered diary sheets for them to gather evidence of ASB. The landlord responded in line with its ASB policy. However, there has been no evidence provided to show this happened. This is a failure of its record keeping.
The landlord contacted the resident about a week later who confirmed there was no further ASB to report. The landlord said it would contact the resident again in a week. It was appropriate for the landlord to check about further reports of ASB with the resident. However, there is no further evidence of the following contact it promised to make. This has made it difficult to understand if further reports of ASB were made around that time and whether it had taken further steps to gather evidence and mitigate it.
Between February and May 2025, the resident reported that their neighbour nailed a shower curtain to the fence and was noisy. The landlord had not responded to 1 of the reports, which was inappropriate. When it did respond, it offered diary sheets which the resident declined. It was appropriate to encourage the resident to gather evidence as they were expected to do in line with its ASB policy. However, as this was declined, it could have discussed alternative evidence gathering tools. There is no evidence it did so, which was unreasonable.
The resident reported ASB again in June 2025. The landlord replied to the resident slightly outside of the timescales set out in its ASB policy. This delay of 2 working days was a failure of its service. It offered to meet with the resident to discuss the reports further. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident requested a case review of their ASB reports. The landlord responded the next day and explained the reports did not meet the threshold for a multi-agency review. It signposted the resident to support, proposed contacting the resident’s medical team, reoffered a meeting, setting out a tenancy sustainment plan, and suggested installing noise monitoring equipment. These actions were appropriate and aligned with its ASB policy.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised that it had not replied to some of the resident’s reports of ASB, said it would learn from its communication guidelines and ASB policy, and encouraged the resident to engage with gathering evidence of ASB. However, it did not recognise all the failures we have found, as set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident told us that the landlord’s inaction to their reports of ASB caused them distress. We have made orders to put things right for the resident which includes contacting them about their reports of ASB. We have also ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance for failures that have had an impact to on them and any distress or inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of ASB.
Since the complaint response, the resident said the ASB from their neighbour has continued and they want to understand what the landlord can do about this.

Complaint	The resident’s report to repair the fence
Finding	Reasonable redress

In February 2025 the resident reported that the fence was broken. The landlord’s repairs policy confirmed that the tenant was responsible for the fence, and not the landlord. In any case, the landlord confirmed it would investigate it. There is no evidence around that time that it sent a further response to the resident to confirm what it would do, if anything, about the fence. This was unreasonable. The resident reported it again in May 2025.
The landlord said in its complaint response that it had not communicated effectively with the resident about this, it apologised and said that it would apply its communication standards better. It said that although it was not responsible to repair the fence, it would investigate this, arrange a quote, and see if it could secure funding to replace it. There is no evidence the fence had been repaired at this time.
The landlord’s comments and actions can be said to have put some things right for the resident, considering that it had not communicated effectively and at an earlier time as to who was responsible for the fence. It recognised lessons learnt from this, apologised, arranged a quote to repair the fence and has committed to secure funding to replace the fence as a gesture of goodwill.
Considering its overall response, as well as our Outcome and Remedies guidance, we have found it has offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This finding is made on the understanding that it contacts the resident about the funding to replace the fence, as it has committed to do.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. The resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive a formal response within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in time, which was in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. However, it had not set an extension to provide the stage 1 response and sent it 29 working days late. This was inappropriate.
After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. It provided the stage 2 response within 20 working days from its acknowledgement of the escalation request. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged it caused delay to provide the stage 1 response and apologised for this. However, it did not set out learnings or offer compensation. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We have made orders to put things right which includes compensation in line with our Remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy for the distress and inconvenience caused for the delay and a review of lessons learnt.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord had not provided evidence of all records about the issue, such as when it responded to the resident and what actions it had taken. This impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident which likely contributed to their distress when expecting responses to their reports.