City of Wolverhampton Council (202406880)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from 2 properties in the same block. She reported that the tenant of Flat A (on the same floor as the resident) had dangerous dogs, was involved in criminal activity, and was causing noise nuisance. She reported noise nuisance from Flat B (on the floor above the resident), including loud music, parties late into the night and dogs barking.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Antisocial behaviour, including criminal activity and dangerous dogs.
   2. Noise nuisance.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour, including criminal activity and dangerous dogs.
   2. Reports of noise nuisance.
5. The was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that the landlord:
   1. Took proportionate steps to investigate and manage the resident’s ASB reports about Flat A. It issued warnings, gathered evidence, worked with agencies, kept the resident informed, took enforcement action and followed its ASB policy.
   2. Investigated reports of noise nuisance about Flat B in line with its ASB policy. It acted promptly, investigated the concerns, issued warnings, and kept the resident updated.
   3. Did not follow the Complaint Handling Code. It issued two stage 1 responses instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2. The first stage 1 response did not address all the issues raised by the resident, and the second stage 1 response was sent outside the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.

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.

7. This investigation focuses on the concerns raised in the resident’s formal complaint. We have reviewed the period from September 2023 to October 2024 to ensure the landlord had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to those concerns through its complaints process. The resident may wish to pursue any current issues directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
8. The resident raised concerns about the landlord breaching confidentiality in her complaint on 4 July 2024. However, this was not part of the stage 2 escalation or response. We do not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. We will therefore not investigate this as a separate issue.
9. The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB which is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The resident made reports about the neighbour from flat A, including noise, criminal activity, dangerous dogs and violence. These reports met the definition of ASB.
10. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policies and good practice.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that, when investigating ASB and noise nuisance, it will:
    1. Assess the impact on the resident, consider risks, and work with other agencies to support the resident’s safety.
    2. Investigate the report, keep the resident’s details confidential (unless agreed otherwise), and provide regular updates.
    3. Offer support, take legal action if necessary, and explain its decision before closing the case.
12. The resident contacted her MP on 5 September 2023 to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She said that it had not responded to her for several months and the ASB was still ongoing. The landlord responded to the resident on 6 September 2023. It apologised for not providing updates and explained that this was due to a staff member being on long-term sick leave.
13. The landlord said it had reviewed the case and not found any new reports of ASB so it assumed the situation had improved. It asked the resident to provide details of any ASB incidents from the past 3 months. This was a reasonable response. It acknowledged the delay and sought further information to assess the current situation.
14. Following an incident on 24 November 2023, where the tenant from Flat A’s dog reportedly attempted to attack another resident, the landlord opened an ASB case. It tried to visit the neighbour on the same day, and again on 5 and 6 December 2023. It also spoke to other neighbours about the behaviour reported by the resident. The landlord reviewed CCTV footage and found evidence of the neighbour entering the building with a dog it considered dangerous. It issued a warning letter on 9 January 2024. These actions show that the landlord took the issue seriously, investigated the report using available evidence and responded in line with its ASB policy.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 26 January 2024, the landlord said it had issued warning letters, spoken to other tenants, and arranged a visit to the resident. It confirmed it would consider legal action if the issue continued. This was a reasonable response. It showed the landlord was investigating the issue, taking action, and keeping the resident informed which was in line with its ASB policy.
16. Between February and August 2024, the landlord continued efforts to visit the alleged perpetrator and engaged with the Police about suspected drug activity and dog ownership. It increased concierge presence, regularly reviewed CCTV footage, and issued a further warning letter on 12 August 2024. It completed a risk assessment with the resident on 19 August 2024, held case reviews, and kept her updated. These actions show that the landlord was actively investigating the reports, working with relevant agencies, and considering risk.
17. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2024. It explained that ASB cases can take time to investigate and confirmed that it was working with the Police regarding the reported criminal activity. While the response could have provided more detail about the next steps, it was reasonable overall. It confirmed that the landlord was continuing to investigate the concerns and actively working with partner agencies to resolve the ASB.
18. On 5 September 2024, the landlord carried out a home visit to the neighbour, accompanied by the Police and the RSPCA. During the visit, it instructed them that the dog must be removed within 28 days. It also issued a warning letter on the same day and confirmed that it was now considering legal action to gain possession of the property. The landlord updated the resident on 12 September 2024. These actions show that the landlord was responding to the resident’s reports, engaging with relevant agencies, and considering enforcement options in line with its ASB policy.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2024. It confirmed that all reports were logged and investigated in line with its policy. It also said that it was now in a position to present the evidence relating to the neighbour’s ASB to its legal team. This response showed that the landlord was continuing to take the resident’s concerns seriously and progressing its investigation with a view to resolving the issues.
20. The resident asked for permanent rehousing to resolve the complaint. The landlord’s allocations policy states that emergency priority is only given in emergency situations where urgent rehousing is required. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the resident already held band 1 priority. It said her circumstances did not meet the criteria for emergency priority and offered suggestions to improve her chances of rehousing. Overall, this was a reasonable response because it was in line with the allocations policy, managed the resident’s expectations, and provided practical advice.
21. Overall, the landlord took proportionate steps to investigate and manage the resident’s ASB reports up to October 2024. It issued warnings, gathered evidence, worked with agencies, including the Police and RSPCA, and kept the resident informed. It followed its ASB policy and built a case before considering legal action. This was necessary to meet legal thresholds. The landlord has since informed this Service that it gained possession of the property in March 2025. This outcome supports that the landlord acted reasonably and there is no evidence of maladministration.

24.     In its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024, the landlord confirmed the ASB case was still open. It said that legal action needed                    strong evidence and the ASB Team Leader would visit the resident to discuss next steps. This was a reasonable approach. It acted              promptly following the report. It spoke to the neighbour and kept the resident informed. It showed it took the reports seriously and                  was taking steps to address the ASB in line with its policy which says that it will investigate reports and keep the resident updated.

25.     Between February and April 2024, the issue continued. The evidence shows the landlord took prompt action when it received further            reports of noise nuisance. It visited the neighbour again on 27 February 2024 to discuss the matter. It also issued a warning letter on            9 April 2024. It kept the resident updated and wrote to her requesting further evidence in order to take additional action. This was a              reasonable response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

26.     The landlord’s records show that it had taken reasonable steps to address the noise nuisance. It had spoken to the resident and                   issued a warning letter. As it did not have enough evidence to prove serious or persistent nuisance, it was reasonable for it to ask                 for more evidence before considering legal action.

27.      Between May and August 2024, the resident continued to report noise from the flat above. The landlord asked for evidence and                   recommended that she contact the concierge monitoring centre on her intercom while the incidents were happening. This was so it               could obtain direct evidence. It also increased the concierge presence at night so it could witness any instances of noise nuisance.               This shows the landlord was taking proactive steps to investigate the reports of noise nuisance.

28.      The landlord completed a risk assessment on 19 August 2024. Although this assessment focused on the resident’s other reports of               ASB, it complied with its ASB policy. The landlord was actively assessing the risks and impact ASB had on the resident. It was                       reasonable not to duplicate this process while in contact with the resident about the noise nuisance.

29.      It its stage 1 response on 22 August 2024, the landlord said it had used CCTV and its concierge service as an additional way to                   gather evidence. It had also sent letters to nearby flats but received no other complaints. While it had not obtained any further                       evidence, it encouraged the resident to continue to send reports about the ongoing noise nuisance. This was a reasonable                           response. The landlord appropriately tried additional methods to try to gather evidence of noise nuisance.

30.      The resident reported further noise from the flat above on 12 September 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask her for                     evidence. For a landlord to act on any reports of ASB, it usually requires evidence, such as noise recordings. Nevertheless, given                 the history of complaints, it was appropriate for the landlord to send a warning letter to the neighbour on 16 September 2024 and to             speak with them on 29 September 2024.

31.      In its October 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord said it could not take legal action due to lack of evidence. It said it was hard to                 gain evidence as the resident had chosen not to record the noise or share her identity. It also said it would continue to support the                 resident. This was a reasonable response. The landlord had already given verbal and written warnings. To take further action, such               as legal proceedings, the landlord requires strong and repeated evidence. By explaining its current position, the landlord acted in                 line with its policy, maintained the resident’s confidentiality, and offered appropriate support.

32.      Cases where there is a history of noise reports over an extended period can be challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice,                 the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to               consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy.

33.      Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy. It acted promptly, investigated               the concerns, issued warnings, completed a risk assessment, and kept the resident informed. It also took reasonable steps to                       gather evidence, including writing to neighbours, increasing concierge presence and using CCTV. It respected the resident’s                         confidentiality and explained its decisions clearly. While we do not doubt the resident has found the ongoing noise nuisance                           distressing, the landlord’s actions up to 2 October 2024 were in line with its ASB policy, and there was no maladministration.

35.       The landlord provided two stage 1 complaint responses to the resident (in January and August 2024). This was not in accordance                with the Code. The Code requires landlords to escalate a complaint to stage 2 if the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1                response.

36.      The landlord should have treated the resident’s correspondence of 4 July 2024 as an escalation request. The resident clearly said               that she would like the complaint to escalate. At the time, 6 months had passed since the stage 1 response, and the issue                             remained  unresolved. The landlord did not escalate the complaint. This extended the complaints process and delayed the                           resident’s   opportunity to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its later responses and did               not offer any redress.

37.      In her complaint on 10 January 2024, the resident asked why dogs were being allowed in the building when a ‘no pet’ policy was in               place. The landlord did not respond to this concern. This falls short of the Code which says landlords must respond to all parts of a               complaint, explain their decisions clearly, and set out what actions will be taken, when, and how. The landlord missed an opportunity             to explain its position and put things right.

38.      The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 22 August 2024. This exceeded its 10-working day timescale by 16 working                   days.  The landlord did not address the delay in its response or offer any redress.

39.      In summary, the landlord did not follow the Code when it issued two stage 1 responses instead of escalating the complaint after the             resident’s clear request on 4 July 2024. This delayed the complaints process. In addition, the second stage 1 was issued outside                 the timeframe set out in the Code and this was not acknowledged by the landlord. Its first stage 1 response also did not address all               the issues that the resident had raised as part of her complaint. As a result of these failings, we find that there was                                         maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

40.      We order that the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances               where service failure by a landlord had an adverse impact on the resident, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully                 put them right.

Learning

Communications

41. The resident raised concerns about what actions the landlord was taking in response to her reports of ASB. The landlord could consider implementing ASB action plans to demonstrate its commitments clearly to residents.

Complaint handling

42. This investigation has highlighted that the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 when the resident requested it. Its complaint responses also did not fully address the resident’s complaint. The landlord should reflect on these issues and consider any learning and staff training needs.

Record-keeping

43. The landlord maintained good records of the efforts it took to investigate the resident’s ASB reports and communicate with the resident.