City of Wolverhampton Council (202519716)

Decision
Case ID	202519716
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Wolverhampton Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The landlord is aware the resident is disabled and has a medical condition that affects his mobility, including the use of his hands. In January 2025 he reported noise nuisance from his next door neighbour including banging, shouting, arguing and slamming doors. The same month, the neighbour reported the resident was harassing them. Between January and April 2025 the landlord took the following actions:
1. Visited the resident and gave him details of support agencies.
2. Spoke with the neighbour and the resident on multiple occasions about the allegations received.
3. Offered mediation.
4. Made enquiries about installing door closers in the neighbour’s property.
5. Completed a risk assessment.
6. Offered the resident the use of the Noise App and installed a noise monitoring device between 20 March and 3 April 2025.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
2. Reports of ASB by the resident.
3. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of ASB by the resident.
2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. The associated formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

There were minor failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour. This included communication failures and the landlord not following through with an agreed action to check the neighbour’s doors.
The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by the resident was appropriate.
The landlord investigated and considered the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and provided reasonable responses.
The landlord’s complaint handling was in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the 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.

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 20 February 2026
2	Neighbour’s doors The landlord must check the neighbour’s doors to decide if any further action can be taken to reduce the banging noise. It must confirm the outcome in writing to the resident, including any work it will do. If the landlord cannot go ahead with this, it must tell the resident why.	No later than 20 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the minor failures in its handling of his reports of ASB by a neighbour.	No later than 20 February 2026
4	ASB case The landlord must confirm in writing the current position regarding his ASB case, including any outstanding actions and next steps it will take.	No later than 20 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports, the reports of ASB by him and staff conduct. He raised 16 specific concerns, which he asked the landlord to respond to.
30 May 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response said the complaint was not upheld. It was satisfied its actions were proportionate and unbiased. It responded to each of the 16 concerns raised.
4 June 2025	The resident told the landlord the noise nuisance was ongoing and the neighbour was harassing him. He said it had been investigating the case for 6 months but nothing had been done, despite him complaining. He said he would be making further complaints about this. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
3 July 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint. It said the investigation had been appropriate and proportionate. It confirmed the recently agreed action plan to continue investigating the case, including arranging a sound test and a professional witness visit.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident says the noise from the neighbour is ongoing. He said the landlord has decided the noise is not excessive but this is not true. He is unhappy the landlord escalated his complaint without obtaining his reasons. He asked for the matter to be resolved, the complaint handling to be investigated and compensation to be paid.

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour
Finding	Service failure

Our investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from January 2025 (when he first reported issues to the landlord) up to its final complaint response of 3 July 2025. The resident has raised further complaints with the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports, which have also been referred to us, and will be responded to separately.
The landlord’s ASB policy says, when a resident reports concerns, depending on the nature of the issue, it will either give them advice at the first point of contact, or refer the matter to the ASB or tenancy team for investigation. When the resident first reported noise concerns on 2 January 2025, the landlord referred this to the tenancy team. This was reasonable as the type of noise reported could be normal domestic noise, so the landlord needed to make a further assessment before deciding what, if any, action was needed.
The landlord’s tenancy team visited the resident on 6 January 2025 to discuss his concerns. This was appropriate to better understand the issue. During this visit, the landlord told him the ASB team could deal with persistent noise. This advice was in line with its ASB policy, which says an example of nuisance behaviour is unreasonable domestic noise, for example, persistent night time disturbances.
The resident said he knew how to report to the ASB team but would wait a few weeks before doing so. On this basis, it was reasonable that the tenancy team did not refer the matter to its ASB team. When the resident reported later that month that the noise was ongoing and happening at night, it was appropriate this was referred to the ASB team for action.
As part of his complaint, the resident said the landlord told him his neighbour reported ASB about him first. He said this was not true as he had been in touch with the tenancy officer prior to the neighbour’s report. He felt the landlord had used this to question the validity of his reports. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that this concern had been addressed as part of a separate complaint that is not within the scope of this investigation. Therefore, we have not assessed it further here. The landlord did say the validity of an ASB report was determined by whether there was evidence to substantiate it and not on who made the report first. This was appropriate advice and showed the landlord was trying to reassure the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will consider the resident’s needs and the harm the ASB or nuisance causes. It will consider the risks to them and, where appropriate, provide support. The landlord completed risk assessments for the resident on 17 March and 28 May 2025. This was in accordance with its policy and shows it was considering the impact on the resident and any risk.
The landlord’s policy is not specific about when it will complete risk assessments for victims. Generally, these should be completed when ASB is first reported. That did not happen in this case. However, prior to completing the first risk assessment, the landlord’s actions show it was considering this. During a home visit on 15 January 2025, it noted the resident became upset about the situation. In response, it provided phone numbers for relevant support services and asked the resident if he had been in touch with his GP. These were appropriate actions to ensure the resident had the necessary support in place.
As the landlord’s policy does not state when it will complete risk assessments, there was no failure in it doing this 2 months after the ASB case was opened. Further, the landlord’s actions show it was considering the risk and any support needs prior to it completing the formal risk assessment. This meant the resident was not left unsupported.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will tell the resident who will handle their ASB case. The landlord’s ASB officer visited the resident on 15 January 2025 to introduce themselves and discuss his concerns. This was the same day the resident made his report to the ASB team, which was timely and showed it was taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will investigate and may use monitoring equipment. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports by speaking to the neighbour multiple times via home visit and phone. It suggested use of the Noise App, installed noise monitoring equipment and suggested arranging a sound test and professional witness visit. All of these actions were reasonable to investigate the resident’s reports.
The resident has provided recordings and diary records to the landlord. He says these are evidence of the neighbour deliberately banging to cause a nuisance. The landlord has acknowledged it heard some banging noise on the recordings, but said this was not excessive considering the type of property and circumstances of the neighbour. It is not our role to investigate the ASB to determine whether the levels of noise are excessive or whether there was, or was not, any deliberate ASB. Instead, it is our role to assess how the landlord responded to the reports and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and were appropriate in all the circumstances.
The landlord has taken a variety of reasonable actions to investigate the noise. It has explained its findings to the resident, including sharing personal information about the neighbour (with their consent) that has impacted its decision making. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord has not concluded the noise is deliberate or excessive as he believes, its actions and responseswere reasonable.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will provide support and early intervention for victims and perpetrators. Where it is necessary and proportionate, it will take legal action to tackle ASB. As the landlord concluded the noise was not excessive or deliberate, it was reasonable that it could not progress legal action.
The landlord repeatedly offered mediation from early on in the case. This was appropriate considering the nature of the issues between the parties and that there was no evidence to pursue formal action. The landlord offered this at various stages throughout the period of our investigation and on multiple occasions explained the potential benefits to the resident. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was committed to finding a resolution.
When the landlord attended on 20 March 2025 to install the noise monitor, it asked the resident to sign a document confirming the installation. He raised concerns about this as part of his complaint, saying he was not given prior warning or enough time to read the document. The document is a short 1 page form and so it was reasonable that the landlord did not share this in advance.
In the risk assessment completed with the resident 3 days earlier, it noted he said he did not need support with communication. Therefore, it was reasonable that it did not put any additional support in place for him in advance of the visit. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the resident did not raise any concerns about signing the form during the installation visit. Therefore, it was reasonable that it did not offer any additional support during the visit, as it was not aware of the resident’s concerns.
The resident made over 200 recordings on the noise monitor. When the landlord collected this on 3 April 2025, it told him it could take weeks to review them. It updated the resident on its progress on 25 April and 30 May 2025 and confirmed it had completed the review on 11 June 2025, around 10 weeks later. It is understandable that it took the landlord this amount of time to review the recordings, and positive that it provided updates in the meantime.
The second update was sent as part of the stage 1 response, in reply to the resident chasing an update. Where actions are taking longer than expected, the landlord should give proactive updates to avoid residents chasing. It would have been helpful if the landlord had included an estimated timescale of when it expected to complete the review of the recordings. Had it done so, it may have avoided the resident spending time and trouble chasing. This was a minor communication failure.
The resident reported one of the causes of the noise was repeated door slamming. He asked the landlord in February 2025 if slow closers could be fitted on the neighbour’s doors to address this. While not obligated to do so, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to look into this as a possible practical solution. The landlord made internal enquiries with its repairs team about this. On 14 March 2025 it told the resident that slow closers could not be fitted on the type of doors the neighbour had.
The resident challenged this the next day and said he believed slow closers could be fitted, or that other adjustments could be made to stop the doors slamming or lessen the noise. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its repairs team and not install slow closers on that basis. It was also not obligated to consider any other adjustments. However, it should have told the resident this, but it did not. It was only when the resident reraised this as part of his formal complaint more than 7 weeks later that the landlord responded to this concern.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord agreed to check the neighbour’s doors to decide if any further action could be taken to reduce the banging noise. We have seen no evidence this happened, or that the landlord told the resident why it could not go ahead with this. While the landlord was not obligated to do so, it should not have made this commitment if it was not going to follow through. Its failure to do what it committed left the resident feeling let down.
We therefore order the landlord to check the neighbour’s doors to decide if any further action can be taken to reduce the banging noise. It must confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident, including any works it will do. If the landlord cannot go ahead with this, it must tell the resident why.
The resident raised concerns about the number of people living in the neighbour’s property. He felt this was a contributing factor to the noise. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate this and provided as much feedback as it could, taking into account data protection. The resident continued to raise concerns about unauthorised people living in the neighbour’s property. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to conclude this matter and did not have to share full details or confirm who was living in there or why. Based on the evidence we have seen, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate this concern and provided appropriate feedback to the resident.
The resident also said the neighbour had a video doorbell, which he felt was inappropriately recording him on his property. He said he had reported this to the landlord on previous occasions but nothing had been done. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had not looked into this as it had not received any specific reports about this, but committed to do so. There is no evidence the resident raised this issue prior to his stage 1 complaint on 6 May 2025. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had not looked into this previously.
During the period of our investigation, the landlord was in regular communication with the resident via phone, email and home visit. It was responsive to his contacts and followed up promptly when required or asked by the resident. This included calls on 10 February, 17 March, and 20 March 2025. These were all within 2 working days of the resident asking for call backs or reporting a new incident.
The landlord explained to the resident that it was not always able to respond immediately due to other commitments or workload demands, which was reasonable. An example of this was on 21 April 2025 (bank holiday Monday) when the resident asked for a callback. The landlord replied via email 3 days later, on 24 April 2025, and said it would phone the following day, which it did. This was a reasonable timescale.
As part of his complaint, the resident said there was one occasion he asked for a call back but did not receive one. On 26 April 2025 (Saturday) the resident asked for a call back on 28 April 2025 (Monday). As the resident’s request was made outside of normal working hours and he had asked for a call back the next working day, it was reasonable that the landlord was not able to make the call as requested.
The landlord did not call the resident and instead sent him an email on 6 May 2025 responding to the concerns he had raised. In the email it explained why it had not called him back and had chosen to respond via email instead. As this was 6 working days after the resident’s initial request for a call back and the landlord had responded to the concerns raised, this was reasonable.
The resident said that during the time he was waiting for a call back, the landlord called the neighbour. This was on his request to ask if he could access their garden to install a new fence. He felt this showed the landlord was favouring the neighbour over him. In response, the landlord reassured him this was not the case. It said it had made contact with the neighbour to help so it could respond to his request quickly. This was reasonable.
During the period of our investigation, the landlord provided prompt feedback to the resident following contact with the neighbour. This included on 4 February and 2 and 11 April 2025. This was either the same day or the day after the landlord had spoken to the neighbour. This showed it was committed to keeping the resident updated.
On at least one occasion the landlord exceeded our expectations in respect of its communication with the resident. On 11 April 2025 it spoke with the resident 3 times in between speaking with the neighbour. These contacts were to discuss the resident’s and the neighbour’s ASB reports to understand what had happened, obtain evidence and find a resolution. This was a significant number of contacts in one day and showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
In mid-May 2025 the landlord told the resident it was seeking guidance on the case and would be in touch with an update by 27 May 2025. It confirmed during a call the following week it was seeking legal advice and could not do anything until after this date. There is no evidence the landlord fed back to the resident about this, which it should have done.
As part of the resident’s contact on 4 June 2025 (subsequently treated as an escalation request) the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of this action. We acknowledge the landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 30 May 2025, which provided a detailed update about the current position and next steps. However, it did not give specific feedback on the outcome of the guidance or legal advice sought. The landlord should have done this to reassure the resident it had done what it said it would. This was a minor communication failure.
The resident has said the landlord has not made reasonable adjustments in respect of his disability. On consideration of the resident’s circumstances, the landlord made enquiries with the noise monitoring machine manufacturer about any adjustments that could be made to assist him with the use of the machine. It also agreed to install the machine for an additional week to give him extra time to make recordings. This was in recognition of him having bad days, where he may not have been able to activate it. These were appropriate actions to take and showed the landlord had given due regard to its responsibility under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it had it recorded the resident’s preferred method of communication as telephone. It said it had used telephone and email as communication and when asked by the resident for calls, it had responded in this way, where it was reasonable in terms of time and workload demands.
In the majority of instances where the resident requested phone contact, the landlord adhered to this within a reasonable timescale. It did not on one occasion in April/ May 2025, but it responded via email within a reasonable timescale and explained why it had not called as requested. While the landlord is required to make adjustments, these must be reasonable and practicable for it. Therefore, it was reasonable that it was not able to respond to all requests for calls via the preferred method, but did so in the majority of instances.
As part of his stage 1 complaint, the resident said his disability could also affect his communication. This meant he sometimes forgot words or could not think of the right thing to say. He also said he felt he had not had the chance to put across his position because he sometimes had issues using the voice to text function to draft emails.
Prior to this, on 17 March 2025, the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident and noted he said he did not need support with communication. Therefore, it was reasonable that it did not make any specific adjustments for him. In response to the information provided in the complaint, the landlord told the resident it had updated its risk assessment to include that he should be given extra time to express himself. This was reasonable and, again, showed it had given due regard to its responsibility under the Equality Act.
This has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage considering the resident’s reports, the neighbour’s counter allegations, the personal circumstances of both parties and the impact on them. Generally, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB has been reasonable. However, we have highlighted some minor failures.
Considering these failures in conjunction with the overall handling of the case, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £75 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for minor failures that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident has reported the ASB is ongoing, and the landlord confirmed a written action plan with him in November 2025. He has raised concerns about this, but these have not been considered as part of this investigation as they relate to an action that happened outside the time period we have assessed. It is important the landlord updates the resident on the progress of the case, so we order it to confirm in writing the current position including any outstanding actions and next steps it will take.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by the resident
Finding	No maladministration

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his neighbour’s reports of ASB by him. He said the neighbour’s reports had been proven to be lies and he was unhappy the landlord was investigating them. It is not our role to investigate the reports or determine whether there has, or has not, been any ASB. We have assessed how the landlord handled the reports and whether its actions were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. We acknowledge it has been upsetting for the resident to be dealt with in this capacity. However, it was appropriate that the landlord investigated the neighbour’s reports of ASB, as it must be impartial and investigate all reports.

The landlord spoke with the resident about the neighbour’s reports and offered advice about the specific issues. In the stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident when it received reports from more than one party, it had to discuss the allegations with the relevant party to allow them to respond. This was normal practice and action would be taken based on a number of factors, including strength of evidence, justification and proportionality. This was reasonable information to provide to explain its actions but also reassure the resident that evidence was needed to support more formal action.
The resident was unhappy the landlord checked the position of his CCTV in response to the neighbour’s concerns. He felt this was an intrusion of his privacy. While upsetting for him, this action was appropriate for the landlord to fully investigate the concerns raised. Once the landlord had checked the position of the CCTV and confirmed there was no problem, it did not raise this further with the resident, which was appropriate.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord speaking to the neighbour’s daughter, rather than the neighbour, as they were not the main tenant. In the stage 1 response the landlord said, as a number of the resident’s reports were about the neighbour’s daughter, it was reasonable that it spoke to her as well as the neighbour. It also said it was for the landlord to manage the reports. This was a reasonable response.
Ultimately, it is for the landlord to decide how best to investigate the reports and who it needs to speak with about them. There may be reasons why it needs to speak with someone other than the main tenant as part of ASB investigations. This is not something it needs to explain or justify to the other party. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by the resident.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

Where a complaint is made about staff conduct, it is not our role to investigate the conduct itself, as this is for the landlord to do. Our investigation looks at whether the landlord’s actions and response to the concerns was fair and reasonable.
The resident reported that a staff member entered his bedroom without his consent during the visit on 20 March 2025. In response, the landlord spoke with the officer and fed back that they did not remember if they went into the resident’s bedroom. It said they remembered looking in there as part of its discussion about installing the noise monitor and they believed they had implied consent as the resident had asked for the device to be installed. It apologised if this made him feel his privacy had been breached. The landlord took the time to investigate the resident’s concern, provided feedback, acknowledged the upset caused, and apologised. These were all reasonable steps.
The resident said he was unhappy with how the member of staff questioned him during the visit on 20 March 2025. This included about the source of the noise, its cause, and whether the neighbour had any support needs. He felt the landlord was calling him a liar. In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained why the staff member had questioned and challenged the resident on these matters. It apologised for any upset caused and confirmed it had not intended to imply he was lying. This was reasonable.
As part of ASB investigations, it is necessary for the landlord to ask difficult questions and/or challenge views or behaviour. This is so it can fully understand the situation and help residents do the same. We acknowledge this caused upset to the resident, but that does not mean the landlord’s actions were inappropriate. The landlord explained why it took this approach and reassured the resident of its intentions, which was reasonable.
The resident said landlord staff accused him of harassment and banging on the wall. He felt they believed the neighbour over him. The landlord explained it was not accusing him of harassment but investigating the neighbour’s allegations. This was appropriate to reassure the resident it was acting impartially.
We acknowledge the resident believes landlord staff have treated him unfairly and inappropriately. However, as its responses to the concerns were appropriate and reasonable, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 9 May 2025, 3 working days after it was raised. This was in line with the committed timescale. It responded 14 working days later, over the committed timescale. The landlord told the resident on 22 May 2025 that it needed to extend the response deadline to 30 May 2025.
The landlord’s complaints policy says if the stage 1 investigation is going to take longer than 10 days, it will contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and confirm the extension of the investigation. Any extension will not be longer than 10 working days. As the landlord told the resident about the 4 working day extension and subsequently met the extended deadline, this was not a failure.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint after his email contact on 4 June 2025. In this email he did not specifically ask to escalate the complaint but expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. He also told the landlord he intended to raise further complaints about this. The Code says if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. It was, therefore, appropriate that the landlord escalated the complaint, even though he had not specifically asked for this.
The Code says a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. In the same way, a resident does not have to specifically ask to escalate a complaint for this to be escalated. Landlords should take a sensible approach and escalate complaints where residents express ongoing dissatisfaction with the issue that gave rise to the original complaint. The landlord did that in this case, which was appropriate and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2025, 2 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord sent the response 19 working days later. Both were within the policy committed timescales. As the landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and our Code, we find there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord should manage ASB cases in line with its ASB policy, as it did in this case. This should include taking varied steps to investigate reports, assessing risk and impact and taking/ offering actions to resolve the issues.
Where a landlord commits to do something, it should follow through with this or tell the resident why it cannot. Not following through with committed actions can leave residents feeling let down.
The landlord should consider any reasonable adjustments it can make for a resident, as it did in this case. If it cannot deliver a requested adjustment, it should explain why.
The landlord should handle complaints in line with its policy and our Code, as it did in this case. The landlord should escalate complaints even if the resident does not specifically ask for this, but instead expresses dissatisfaction with the handling of the issue that gave rise to the original complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

No record keeping issues have been identified in this investigation. The evidence provided was sufficient for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

Where the landlord tells a resident it is seeking guidance about an ASB case, including legal advice, it should tell the resident the outcome. This is to reassure the resident that it sought the advice, as committed.
Where actions are taking longer than expected, the landlord should update the resident and include an expected date it will complete the action. This will avoid the resident spending time and effort chasing for updates.