Cornwall Housing Limited (202419341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419341

Cornwall Housing Limited

30 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
2. Decision to allocate the neighbouring property to the neighbour.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. Her property is designated for tenants aged over 55 in an area where most properties are reserved for over 55s. The property is managed by a management company which is owned by the landlord. For ease of reference, both the landlord and the management company will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report. The resident is represented by a family member in the complaint. Both will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
On 1 February 2024 the resident reported her concerns to the landlord about her new neighbour in the property next door. She said he had made banging noises in the property until midnight, had shouted and sworn in his property, and approached her to ask for cigarettes while “shaking”. The resident said that she was concerned for her safety. Over the next 2 weeks, she reported that the neighbour made loud noises in the property at night, up to 2.30am. The resident said this was stopping her from sleeping and was having a serious effect on her mental health.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 16 February 2024. She said was unhappy with its response to her reports of noise. She felt it had delayed taking action and had not acknowledged the effect on her mental health. The resident also questioned the landlord’s decision to allow someone under 55 to move next door.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 March 2025, which said it had contacted the neighbour on the day of the resident’s report. It said it had also written to him and was working with him to resolve the reported noise. The landlord acknowledged that it should have spoken to the resident sooner to update her and agree a schedule of contact. It apologised for this. The landlord also said it had considered the impact on the resident on the reported noise and had therefore offered the neighbour a management move to another property. It also offered an explanation on how the neighbouring property had come to be classed as general needs.
Between March and July 2024, the resident continued to report noise nuisance from her neighbour up to several times a week. She submitted diary sheets of the noise and took part in mediation. On 2 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that she felt it had ignored her and had failed to support her. The resident chased the landlord for updates on when the neighbour would be moving.
The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s procedure on 12 July 2024. She said that it had not followed good practice by letting the neighbouring property without floor coverings, which had made the noise worse. The resident said this had led to her physical and mental health deteriorating. She said the landlord had been “insensitive” in letting the property to the neighbour andit had not considered her individual needs.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2024. It did not uphold her complaint and said that there had been no evidence of a tenancy breach by the neighbour. The landlord said it had followed its ASB policy by maintaining communication with the resident, assessing the risk to her, and offering mediation.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance from the neighbour to the landlord. She subsequently had noise monitoring equipment installed in her property which found no evidence of a tenancy breach by the neighbour. On 4 April 2025 the resident moved away from her property.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she is seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience she says she experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident was unhappy that her neighbouring property was designated a general needs property and was allocated to her neighbour who was aged under 55. After careful consideration, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider, in accordance with paragraph 42.n. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This says that we may not investigate complaints which concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse effect to the complainant.
The landlord’s decision to allocate the neighbouring property to someone aged under 55 did not, in itself, cause significant adverse effect to the resident. We recognise that the resident reported experiencing ASB from her neighbour, which she felt was linked to his age. However, ASB can be experienced from tenants of any age. We acknowledge that the resident felt negatively affected by the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and this will be considered in this investigation.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord must be given an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns through its complaints process.
Therefore, this investigation has focused on events between 1 February 2024 and 1 August 2024. This is the period between the resident making her first report of ASB and the landlord providing its final complaint response to the complaint. The Ombudsman understands that other events took place following the final complaint response to attempt to resolve the reported ASB. These have not been considered as the landlord has not yet responded to any dissatisfaction with these events as a complaint. If the resident wishes to pursue the more recent issues further, she may be able to raise this as a separate complaint to the landlord.
The resident said that her physical and mental health has been affected by the reported noise from the neighbour. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether any action or lack of action by the landlord directly had an effect on the resident’s health. However, we will consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced resulting from any identified failings by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour

We understand the situation with her neighbour was very distressing for the resident. However, it is important to be aware that it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB or noise nuisance occurred. It is our role to assess whether the landlord acted in line with its obligations under the law and its own policies when responding to the resident’s reports of noise. We have considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable when taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it considers ASB to be “Behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.” The policy says that it will:
1. Aim to investigate issues within 10 working days.
2. Agree an action plan with the resident.
3. Keep the resident informed.
4. Take appropriate action.
The landlord responded reasonably and proportionately to the resident’s reports of noise in the following aspects:
1. When it received the report of ASB from the resident on 2 February 2024, we have seen evidence that it contacted the neighbour promptly and investigated potential sources of the noise.
2. It provided diary sheets to the resident to enable her to begin recording evidence of the noise reports.
3. It arranged for shuttle mediation on 24 April 2024, where it attempted to replicate the noise the resident reported.
4. It visited the resident on 26 April 2024 to assist her with installing a noise app to record the reported noise.
5. It maintained contact with her and called her approximately every 2 weeks.
The above were reasonable actions taken by the landlord that were in accordance with its ASB policy.
However, the landlord did not entirely demonstrate the “victim-centred approach” it said it did in its final complaint response. It said it had carried out a risk assessment; however, there was no evidence that it did this until it conducted a victim assessment on 25 July 2024. The landlord should have carried out a risk assessment on, or shortly after, 6 February 2024. This was when it decided to call the emergency services to perform a welfare check on the resident due to her mention of self-harm.
Since the landlord was aware that the resident was reporting a serious effect on her mental health from the reported noise, it was a significant failure that it delayed carrying out a risk, or victim, assessment for approximately 6 months. This was despite her making regular reports to the landlord that the noise was causing her significant distress.
The landlord reviewed noise recordings on 12 June and 23 July 2024 and found that there was no evidence of actionable noise. The resident acknowledged that the majority of the noise was household noise. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints – Time to be heard” report sets out that it is not always appropriate to investigate reports of noise as ASB. A landlord’s use of its ASB policy may give the resident who is reporting noise unrealistic expectations. This because reports of household noise are unlikely to meet the threshold to allow the landlord to take action against the alleged perpetrator. In such cases noise complaints can become protracted and lead to deepening tensions between neighbours.
Our Spotlight report recommended landlords consider practical solutions to minimising noise. For example, it may have been useful for the landlord to signpost the neighbour to sources of funding for floor coverings. This may have led to reduced noise transfer between the properties. There was no evidence of the landlord considering this and the landlord will be recommended to review its procedures for handling noise complaints against our report to improve its service in the future.
The landlord showed its commitment to resolving the issue by inviting the neighbour to accept a management transfer to another property. Management transfers are typically only used in the most severe cases of ASB, or when there is a significant risk of harm to a tenant by staying in a property. The landlord’s decision to offer this to the neighbour demonstrated that it took the circumstances of the situation, and the impact on the resident, seriously. Although the neighbour ultimately did not move, this does not evidence a failure by the landlord. The neighbour was entitled to refuse to move. The landlord had insufficient evidence to force the neighbour to move through legal means, and a successful transfer was dependent on a suitable property being available.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise amounts to service failure. The landlord largely took reasonable steps in accordance with its ASB policy to investigate the reported ASB however its lack of risk assessment meant that it may have missed opportunities to better support the resident through the investigation. To recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result, the landlord should pay her compensation of £150.
This award of £150 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website and sets out our approach to compensation. This says that awards of compensation between £100 and £600 are appropriate when there has a been a failure by the landlord leading to distress or inconvenience for the resident, but which may not be permanent.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” Its policy also states that “A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.”
The policy sets out a 2-stage internal complaints procedure, where the landlord should acknowledge a complaint or complaint escalation within 5 working days. At stage 1 of this, it should provide a written response to the resident within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At the final stage, the landlord should provide a written response within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. The above mirrors the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all landlords who are members of the Scheme must comply with.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 16 February 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on 22 February 2024. It issued its stage 1 complaint response to her on 6 March 2024. Its response was within the 10 working days set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
On 2 May 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her noise reports. Its internal communication noted that this was an existing complaint. Since the resident had complained again about the landlord’s handling of her noise reports, it would have been reasonable for it to offer to escalate her complaint at this point. It failed to escalate the complaint, which was not in line with the Code. This states “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 of the landlord’s procedure.”
The resident needed to make a further request on 12 July 2024 before the landlord acknowledge the escalation of the complaint. It issued its final complaint response to her on 1 August 2024. This was 15 working days after it acknowledged the complaint, but approximately 3 months after it should have escalated the complaint. This was an excessive period.
The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint sooner may have contributed to her concern that it was not taking her circumstances into account and prevented it from investigating whether its approach to investigating the reported noise was appropriate. To recognise the likely distress experienced by the resident by the landlord’s delayed handling of her complaint, it must pay her compensation of £100.
This award of £100 compensation is in accordance with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. This sets out that awards of £50 to £100 are appropriate when there has been a failure by the landlord which led to distress and inconvenience for the resident. However, this failure may have been of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident attempted to raise a new complaint with the landlord on 9 October 2024 about its handling of her reports of noise. It did not accept the complaint as it said it had already considered her complaint about the issue. This is outside the scope of this investigation. However, it should be highlighted that the resident was entitled to raise a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports after its final response on 1 August 2024. This is because the subsequent events had not been investigated through the complaints procedure. We will recommend the landlord contact the resident to offer to investigate these later events as a new complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42.n. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s decision to allocate the neighbouring property to the neighbour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following order:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £250. This is made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced from its failure in its handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience she experienced from its failure in the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide refresher training to its complaints handling staff to ensure that it handles complaints in compliance with the Code.
The landlord should contact the resident to ask if she still wishes to raise a new complaint about the events after its final stage complaint response on 1 August 2024. If the resident wants to proceed with a complaint, the landlord should respond in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord should review its procedures for handling noise complaints against the Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints – Time to be heard” report. It should specifically consider the recommendations concerning managing noise complaints through its tenancy management procedures rather than through its ASB process.