Citizen Housing Group Limited (202330437)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property, a one bedroom flat on the fifth floor, in July 2019. In September 2023, a new neighbour moved in next door. The resident reported noise disturbances shortly after the neighbour’s arrival and later submitted a complaint about how the landlord responded to the neighbour’s behaviour.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handing of reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Acted in line with its Followed its ASB policy and took reasonable and proportionate steps in response to the resident’s report of noise disturbance from her neighbour.
   2. Followed its complaints policy and procedure.

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.

5. The landlord’s ASB policy says that if a resident breaches their tenancy, it will first attempt non-legal interventions to address the issue. If these steps are unsuccessful, the landlord will then consider legal action. The policy requires the landlord to create an action plan and keep all parties informed while the ASB case remains open.
6. When the resident raised concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord opened an ASB case and took steps that were reasonable and consistent with its policy. Specifically, the landlord:
   1. Completed risk assessments.
   2. Asked the resident to complete diary sheets.
   3. Met with the resident and neighbour and completed action plans for each.
   4. Kept in touch with the council’s environmental health team, which issued several noise abatement notices to the neighbour.
   5. Liaised with other council services that were supporting the neighbour.
   6. Maintained regular contact with the resident and kept her informed about the actions it was taking.
7. The neighbour’s ASB continued despite interventions by the landlord and the council. At one point, the resident recorded on her diary sheets that she felt at risk of harming herself due to ongoing ASB. The landlord responded appropriately by raising a safeguarding concern, visiting the resident, and contacting the council’s mental health team. Although the resident declined support from the council’s services, the landlord acted correctly by identifying a potential risk, addressing the concern, and offering appropriate support.
8. The law prevents landlords from starting eviction proceedings until 4 months after a tenancy begins. The landlord informed the resident of this restriction. It initiated the eviction process within a few weeks of reaching the 4-month point, which was a reasonable timeframe. The resident was advised that the neighbour would leave in April 2024, but this did not occur. The landlord then applied to the court for a possession order, which required the neighbour to leave the property by 21 June 2024. When the neighbour failed to leave by that date, the landlord promptly requested an eviction warrant from the court. The neighbour was evicted on 28 August 2024.
9. The evidence shows that the resident experienced significant distress during this period due to the ongoing impact of her neighbour’s behaviour. She was told dates the resident would be leaving but then it did not happen, which was understandably upsetting. However, the landlord took reasonable steps within its control to progress the matter. The delays were due to the time required for each stage of the legal process to be completed before the neighbour could be removed from the property. There was no maladministration.

10. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2 within its policy timeframes. Each response was detailed and addressed the concerns raised by the resident. We did not identify any failures in how the landlord managed the formal complaint process. There was no maladministration.

Learning

11. The landlord kept clear and consistent records throughout the ASB case and the complaint process.
12. The overall communication from the landlord to the resident was good throughout the ASB case.