Citizen Housing Group Limited (202517114)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bedsit owned by the landlord and has mental health vulnerabilities. He began reporting noise nuisance from a neighbour around July 2024. The landlord initially said it could not open an ASB case because there was insufficient evidence and some of the reported noise appeared to be everyday household noise. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord followed its ASB policy in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It offered a range of tools, support and worked in partnership with the Police and the Council’s noise team to assist in resolving the issues.
7. The landlord complied with the Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

8. The landlord deals with noise nuisance under its ASB and Hate policy. It gives examples of ASB that include noise, such as loud music, which can be heard outside the home, and which may disturb other people. It says that these incidents will be investigated by the council’s environmental health department who will decide on whether action is required.
9. The landlord outlines that not all noise is antisocial. “Noises that arises out of ordinary and reasonable use of the property are not breaches of tenancy and cannot be subject to enforcement actions. Examples include footfalls, light switched on or off, general talking, toilet flushing, babies crying, children playing.”
10. There is evidence that the resident began reporting noise nuisance from a neighbour in July 2024. Around 4 reports were logged about loud music, including 1 incident of noise throughout the night. There is evidence that the council’s noise team dealt with the reports and ascertained no action was required.
11. The resident continued to contact the landlord between August 2024 and January 2025 which included the return of completed diary sheets. In January 2025, the resident provided the landlord with further information, which included allegations of threats of violence. Shortly afterwards, in early February 2025, he made a formal complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 February 2025, explaining that the noise he had reported amounted to everyday household noise and did not meet the threshold for ASB action.
12. The landlord’s records refer to the resident being unwilling to share additional details about the alleged threats of violence. Without this information, the landlord was restricted in its progression of the case. The evidence does show, however, that the landlord had obtained some information from the Police, attempted to reassure him that any information would be kept confidential and offered support and mediation. In the circumstances, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint in mid‑February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in mid‑March 2024. It explained that it could not open an ASB case at that time because it did not have sufficient evidence and the resident was unwilling to provide further details.
14. The landlord said it had tried to reassure him about confidentiality, highlighted its joint working with the police, and outlined its efforts to gather evidence from other neighbours. It also encouraged him to continue reporting incidents and repeated its offer of mediation and support. These were appropriate steps aimed at resolving the reported noise issues.
15. It is unclear what prompted the landlord to open an ASB case in April 2025. However, doing so was a positive step, as it led to the creation of a clear action plan setting out how the case would be managed going forward. This included the completion of a risk assessment (date unknown). In these circumstances, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
16. In conclusion, although the landlord did not always have sufficient evidence to open an ASB case, it demonstrated that it worked with the resident and engaged appropriately with the police, the council’s noise team, and external mediation services in an effort to resolve the issues. After issuing its final complaint response, the landlord did open an ASB case and provided the resident with a clear action plan for how the matter would be managed going forward. This also included an action plan with the alleged perpetrator. These were all appropriate steps that aligned with its ASB policy. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance.

17. The resident submitted a complaint on 7 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged it the same day and issued its stage 1 response on 13 February 2025. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), stage 1 complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. The landlord met these requirements, and its response times were compliant with the Code.
18. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 17 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2025. Under the Code, stage 2 requests must be acknowledged, defined, and logged within 5 working days, and a final response must be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgment. The landlord met these requirements, and its handling of the complaint was compliant with the Code. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

19. The landlord’s overall management of the noise nuisance case was good. However, it should consider expanding on its record keeping actions to ensure it has a clear audit of incidents that align to its actions.