Dacorum Borough Council (202345459)

Decision
Case ID	202345459
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Dacorum Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. She has anxiety and depression. She complained about noise that was being made by her neighbour – namely by carrying out DIY and as their dog was barking. She expressed concern that this amounted to antisocial behaviour (ASB), and about the landlord’s handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

The landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy. It failed to respond to several of the resident’s earlier reports, it did not complete an action plan or carry out a risk assessment.
The landlord failed to keep an accurate audit trail of the actions it took to respond to the resident’s reports.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint and missed the opportunity to put things right when it issued its stage 2 response.

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 26 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of ASB. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 November 2025
3	ASB Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a visit or call to create an action plan and conduct a risk assessment. A copy of which must be provided to the resident and us.	No later than 26 November 2025
4	Learning order Given the record keeping failures highlighted by our investigation, the landlord must review its practices and identify: how this may be improved. what action it will take to ensure better practices.	No later than 24 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: it was not doing anything about her reports of ASB. the neighbour’s dog was barking continuously. the same neighbour was constantly making noise from DIY work. Despite getting her member of parliament (MP) involved, she felt the landlord was ignoring her. the situation was affecting her mental health.
22 November 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had not received any reports of ASB. However, to progress matters it said it would inform the resident who her tenancy management officer (TMO) was, so they could investigate her case. It also asked her to complete diary sheets.
25 November 2023	In response, the resident emailed the landlord to say that the landlord was not progressing her complaint. She had spoken with the TMO to express concern about the neighbour’s hedge and garden. When doing so, she queried the status of her other ASB complaints and was informed that someone else was dealing with the matter.
10 March 2024	The resident contacted us as she felt the landlord was not doing anything about her complaint and her reports of ASB.
23 August 2024	The resident contacted us say she felt the landlord was not doing anything about her reported ASB. We advised her that we could not investigate her complaint without a stage 2 response.
3 September 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to explain why she was unhappy. She said it had not considered the correspondence between herself, the landlord and her MP. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to tell her neighbour to stop doing DIY and stop the dog from barking constantly. She wanted compensation for the stress caused.
30 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: in 2022, the resident made complaints about the hedge, but its records did not find any mention of noise related issues. Later that year it advised the MP that it needed diary sheets so that it could understand how often the noise was happening. the resident was reluctant to complete diary sheets and it therefore it did not have enough evidence. It would complete another inspection of the neighbour’s property but at this stage it was satisfised the neighbour was adhering to the terms of the tenancy agreement. If the resident was open to mediation, someone would reach out to offer support and advice about completing diary sheets.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She feels reporting the nuisance by email and phone calls between 2018 and 2024 is sufficient evidence. She says she has also provided the landlord with recordings of the noise.

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	The handling of noise related ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

We note the resident’s said that she reported noise disturbances since 2018. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Therefore, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2022.

What we did investigate

The resident’s comments that the ASB has been a longstanding issue are noted. When the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1, it said that it had not received any reports of ASB. We have seen an email from the resident to the landlord dated 19 February 2023. She raised her frustrations about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB but also some overgrown hedges and brambles. The landlord has provided evidence that it responded to issues in the garden, indicating it received the email. However, it is not clear why the landlord in the same way did not follow its ASB policy to investigate the ASB concerns raised in this email. It is also not clear why the landlord stated it had not received any reports of ASB, when the email clearly sets out her concerns.
Further, within the stage 2 response, the landlord referred to an MP enquiry that it received in 2022. It has not provided us with the correspondence despite our request for it. However, it said that at the time it explained it needed diary sheets so that it could understand the frequency of the issues. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous records relating to this period, but this suggests that the resident had reported some concerns to the landlord. While we cannot establish what happened or when, the landlord’s somewhat conflicting comments between the stage 1 and stage 2 response are indicative of poor record keeping practices.
Nevertheless, on receipt of the complaint, the landlord was notified of noise related ASB concerns. There was approximately 1 year between the stage 1 and stage 2 response and during this time it did not take steps to respond in accordance with its policy. There is no evidence that it spoke to the resident to complete an action plan. Not only was it required to do this, but it was also a good opportunity for it to explain the evidence gathering process and its general approach to ASB complaints. Had it done so, it would have also managed the resident’s expectations better.
It is noted that the resident was asked to complete diary sheets within the stage 1 response and the landlord explained the reason for its request. While this was reasonable, the landlord could have discussed this further and the significance of completing these if it had created an action plan. It could have also explored other methods that could be used to support the resident’s reports if she did not wish to complete diary sheets.
There is also no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment. While it is not expressly referred to in its ASB policy, it does state it will help provide practical and emotional support for victims of ASB. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, by not completing a risk assessment, or an equivalent evaluation of her needs, it missed the opportunity to identify how it could support her.
It is noted that the landlord offered to refer the resident to an independent mediation service that deals with neighbour disputes. This was good practice and in line with its policy. Mediation is also an effective tool in resolving neighbour disputes. However, the landlord may have had more success exploring this if it had created an action plan with the resident and confirmed what its approach to the situation would be.
On 25 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to query why it had not considered the MP correspondence and her previous email and calls. The landlord did not respond to these specific concerns, and this led to the resident having to chase it. It was a failing that it did not respond. It was a missed opportunity for it to engage with the resident in a meaningful way and show that it was taking her concerns seriously.
There are no detailed notes of calls or visits made. There are no records of emails sent by the resident prior to the complaint in October 2023. The poor record keeping in this case has likely impacted the landlord’s overall handling of the case.
We appreciate that the landlord faced challenges in trying to gather evidence. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, its handling of the case could have been better. The lack of an action plan and risk assessment likely impacted its handling of the ASB case. As such we order the landlord to pay £600 compensation. This is in recognition for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its policy and engage with the resident about alternative methods for collecting evidence.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out best practice for how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the April 2022 edition for the stage 1 response and the April 2024 edition for the stage 2 response. The landlord’s complaints policy is Code compliant.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 3 working days. It delayed in provided its stage 1 response, 32 working days later on 22 November 2023, However, the landlord appropriately agreed an extension with the resident, in line with the Code.
The resident replied to the stage 1 complaint response on 25 November 2023 and indicated her dissatisfaction with the decision. This should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident and ask her whether she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The Code states that 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 a failing that this was not done. It was only later when the resident approached us, that the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. This contributed to a delay of more than 6 months in issuing a stage 2 response, and time and trouble to the resident as she had to contact us for assistance.
When the landlord responded to the stage 2 response, it did so in 18 working days. However, it failed to acknowledge its delay in escalating the complaint. It missed the opportunity to put things right. As a result, we order it to pay compensation of £100. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.

Learning

The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy once the complaint was received. It should consider whether it needs to deliver training to relevant staff about this.
Landlords should be aware of the Code and what its obligations are when a resident expresses dissatisfaction. By doing so, it can effectively respond. In this case had it done this, it could have escalated the complaint much sooner, avoiding the lengthy delay where she had to involve us.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping in this case was not appropriate. This indicates that relevant staff may not be recording data accurately or with enough details.