Incommunities Limited (202342798)

Decision
Case ID	202342798
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Incommunities Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of noise disturbance from a neighbouring property. Later, she complained about staff conduct. She remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Staff conduct.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Staff conduct.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not give the resident enough information about the tenancy enforcement tools available to it, or sufficiently manage her expectations. It would have also been reasonable for it to consider other actions to progress the case or support the resident.
The landlord failed to explain that it would not be able to share information about the outcome of its internal investigation into her report.
The landlord failed to respond to one of the resident’s complaints through its complaints process, which was the cause of avoidable distress and inconvenience.

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 28 May 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. £100 for the impact of the delay caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to her complaint when it was first made. £350 in compensation which the landlord offered the resident during the complaints process. 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 28 May 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must provide us with evidence that it has offered to meet the resident in person to make an action plan to address the issues reported by the resident. It should discuss: Tools it can use to investigate noise disturbance, including legal, non-legal, and supportive tools. The thresholds for different types of intervention, and Any options it can use in the resident’s case.	No later than 28 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord (complaint A). She said: She had experienced intermittent noise disturbance from a neighbour. She was worried about disturbance at Christmas. The landlord should have told her about recent changes to the noise app (a phone application used to submit noise recordings). She had difficulty sending recordings because of the changes. Her housing officer had failed to return her call. She was not told there was a new housing officer for her area.
5 January 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It summarised the actions it had taken, and said: The resident reported noise disturbance on 18 December 2023. It contacted her the next day to discuss the reports. Her housing officer said they would speak to colleagues about the history of the case. The resident reported disturbances on Christmas day and boxing day. The resident’s neighbour accepted that they had caused disturbance. Action was being taken against them. It could not give more detail about this due to data protection regulations. It would contact the resident fortnightly about the case. It apologised that it did not tell the resident about her new housing officer. It would write to residents about the change. Its decision to open a new antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for the reports was reasonable due to the gap between reports.
12 January 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint A to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said explained that the disturbances had a significant impact on her and said: There was a reference number missing from its complaint response. Although she had asked it to, the landlord did not contact her neighbour about the disturbances before Christmas. There was noise disturbance over Christmas as she feared. There had been previous occasions where the landlord did not tell residents about housing officer changes. She still did not have a letter telling her of the change. It told her it would explain the new regulations about data protection in its complaint response, but it did not. If it did not tell her about the action it had taken against her neighbour, she had no way to know if it had acted on the concerns. Her neighbour always admitted causing a disturbance. The landlord had other tools available to it, like signing a ‘no noise agreement’.
9 February 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It apologised for inaccuracies in its stage 1 complaint response and said: It acknowledged the impact of the disturbances over Christmas. It accepted there were other occasions where residents were not told about housing officer patch changes. It did not send the newsletter until 12 January 2024 due to staff absence. It had been told by its supplier that residents were informed about changes to the ‘noise app’ It apologised if this was not the case. The ‘noise app’ was a third-party application. It could not provide the information the resident had requested due to data protection requirements. Necessary action was being taken. It could tell her if action was legal or not, and if it was being referred to court. It could not give more information unless a case was listed at court and the resident was required to be a witness. It had assessed its previous handling of her case. It could not see that it had followed its procedures by completing a risk assessment or sending a case closure letter. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for this failure.
22 February 2024	After the complaints process, the resident explained to the landlord that she was still unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. It reviewed its handling of her reports from 2019 onwards. It found that: It had not always followed its procedures in previous cases, including not completing risk assessments. In recognition of its failings, it offered the resident £350 in compensation, made up of: £300 compensation for its failure to follow its ASB procedures. £50 for poor record keeping.
8 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of her housing officer (complaint B). She said: She had complained to the landlord about noise disturbance from a neighbour’s pets. The landlord’s officer, who was investigating the issue, sold her neighbour a camera. It knew the neighbour intended to use the camera to disprove the allegations, this did not demonstrate impartiality.
21 October 2024	The landlord interviewed the resident about her concerns. It wrote to her, confirming it had closed her complaint with her agreement as it was doing an employee conduct investigation.
24 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord (complaint B). She said: It had given her insufficient information about the outcome of its investigation into her concerns about staff conduct. She could not decide if she was happy with the outcome of the investigation without knowing what action had been taken.
5 January 2025	The landlord responded to complaint B stage 1 of its complaints process. It said: It had investigated the resident’s report thoroughly and taken appropriate disciplinary action in line with its policies and procedures. It could not disclose specific details about action taken due to data protection requirements. The officer the resident complained about would no longer be the allocated officer for the resident or her neighbour. Her new officer would introduce themselves.
7 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint B. She reiterated her concerns. In addition, she said: Her new housing officer told her he was the officer for her address but not neighbouring properties. The landlord had not dealt with the investigation fairly. The reports she made about the officer amounted to gross misconduct.
1 April 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, saying: It could not share information about the outcome of the investigation due to data protection requirements. It had not updated her between 21 October 2024 and 8 January 2025 as no updates were available. The housing officer she had complained about would not work with her or her neighbour.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said her trust in the landlord had been damaged by it not sharing information with her. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise disturbance. She had continued to experience noise disturbance. This affects her wellbeing and her ability to enjoy her home.

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	Reports of noise disturbance.
Finding	Service failure

The resident has reported intermittent incidents of noise disturbance from a neighbour’s property over a 10-year period. They include reports of shouting, music, and parties. We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, in the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focussed on the landlord’s handling of the issues from December 2022 onwards. This is 12 months before the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy defines ASB as “actions by individuals or groups that disturb an occupier’s enjoyment of their home, garden, or community”. The landlord considers ‘excessive noise’, rowdy behaviour and drunkenness to be ASB. As such, the resident’s reports met the landlord’s threshold for antisocial behaviour.
The landlord accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s reports before December 2023. It acknowledged that while its ASB policy requires it to do risk assessments and action plans for all cases, it had no evidence they were completed in cases before this date.
On 18 and 19 December 2023, the resident reported noise disturbance. She said she asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour before the Christmas holidays. The landlord’s records do not show whether it agreed to do so.
While the landlord contacted the neighbour within 3 working days, we saw no evidence that it explained to the resident that it might be unable to make contact by her requested date. This was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations which damaged the landlord‑resident relationship, so the landlord’s apology was appropriate.
After the resident reported disturbance in December 2023, the landlord took appropriate steps in response to the issues, including:
1. Interviewing the resident, completing a risk assessment and action plan.
2. Suggesting mediation.
3. Giving her details of the ‘noise app’, a mobile application residents can use to record noise disturbances.
4. Arranging to interview the alleged perpetrator without delay.
5. Asking the resident’s neighbour to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC). ABCs are voluntary, non-legally binding written agreements. They usually list behaviours that the signatory agrees not to do.
6. It took non-legal tenancy enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour after she admitted to causing noise nuisance.
In its ASB policy, the landlord says it will take steps to understand the victim’s expectations and that it will be ‘honest as to what can be achieved’. The evidence does not show that the landlord did this. For example:
1. Records from the January 2024 interview do not show if the landlord discussed the resident’s desired outcomes from her reports.
2. We did not see evidence that the landlord clearly explained the range of support and enforcement tools available to it. It should have done so, specifically explaining the relevant thresholds in the circumstances of her case.
It is important that landlords set out their position clearly. It shows transparency and helps to prevent residents feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously. The landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations was a significant failing in this case and may have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
There were other shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the reports. For example:
1. The resident disclosed that she had depression and anxiety. The landlord’s risk assessment rated her as being at ‘medium risk’. The resident said in the assessment that she was ‘extremely’ affected by the incidents and had limited support. As such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to support services. We saw no evidence it did so.
2. We saw no evidence that the landlord considered asking the neighbour to sign an acceptable behaviour contract before the resident suggested this. Given the history of intermittent disturbances, it could have considered this sooner.
3. The landlord could have told the resident about the ASB case review process, which allows victims of persistent antisocial behaviour to request a multi‑agency review of their case where a local threshold is met. In the resident’s area, this is 3 separate incidents in 6 months. It is best practice for landlords to inform residents of the process even if the threshold has not been met.
4. The landlord could have spoken to neighbours to see if they were experiencing disturbance. This may have helped it to gather corroborating evidence.
5. The landlord should have clearly recorded whether it considered the reported noise to meet the threshold for statutory noise nuisance. Where this threshold is met, local authorities have additional powers, such as serving an abatement notice. If the threshold was met the landlord could have referred the case.
6. Although the landlord told the resident that it would consider earlier cases for context, it was not always clear that this happened in practice. There was evidence that on one occasion a tenancy enforcement action was repeated across separate cases within a 12-month period. This suggests that the wider history of the case was not consistently considered.
7. The landlord listened to the recordings the resident sent it through the ‘noise app’ in a reasonable timescale. But it is not clear if it communicated its assessment of the recordings to the resident. This was either a communication or record keeping failing.

The noise app

The landlord acknowledged that an update to the ‘noise app’, affected the resident’s ability to make noise recordings. As the app is a third‑party tool, the landlord had no direct control over the issue, although the difficulties were understandably frustrating for the resident.
The landlord said that it gave residents advice about the application update when they asked it for support. In response to the resident’s complaint, it also said it would put the information about the update on its webpage. However, it could have been more proactive by contacting residents it knew were actively using the app to alert them to the issue.

Information Sharing

The landlord is bound by data protection legislation and commits in its ASB policy to ‘maintaining appropriate confidentiality for both victims, witnesses, and perpetrators’. The landlord was right to limit what it shared about action taken against the resident’s neighbour, in line with these requirements.
The explanation the information it could and could not share set out in its stage 2 complaint response was clear. For example, it explained that it could let her know if it was referring her case to court, and to give specific additional detail if the resident was needed as a witness in court.
The landlord told the resident that its officers had recently had training on data protection regulations, and as a result they would no longer give out the same level of information that they had previously. It acknowledged that this may be frustrating.
However, its records indicate that even after it explained this, different members of staff gave the resident different amounts of information. This likely caused her further confusion and frustration.

Officer changes

The landlord accepts that it had not always informed residents when the allocated officer for their area was changed. To keep residents better informed, it had introduced resident newsletters.
It explained that it had reallocated staff in its housing management team in November 2023. It did not inform those in the residents’ patch of the changes because the new officer was absent from work and work that would usually be assigned to the officer had been reallocated to other members of staff in the meantime. This was reasonable, as giving the officer’s details when it did not know when they would return may have caused additional frustration for residents who needed to contact them.
After the officer returned to work full time in January 2024, they sent a newsletter to residents introducing themselves. They did this within 8 working days, which was a reasonable timescale in the circumstances.
While we have identified failings that the landlord has not previously acknowledged, we cannot say if this will have affected the overall outcome of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s concerns.
It is positive that the landlord identified failures in its handling of the case and offered the resident compensation. Had it not done so, we would have found maladministration in its handling of the case. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £350 in compensation was reasonable. The offer aligns with our approach to compensation (available on our website) and is within the range of what we would have awarded, had the landlord not already made an offer.
As the resident told us that she is still experiencing noise disturbance, we have also ordered the landlord to arrange to meet with her in person to take details of her concerns. It must explain its approach to noise nuisance to her, including outlining the tools available to it and relevant thresholds for legal action.

Complaint	Complaint about staff conduct.
Finding	Service failure

Information relating to staff conduct or internal disciplinary matters is personal data and is confidential. We can consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about conduct, and whether it followed its internal policies and processes. However, we cannot share details of any internal HR processes or outcomes in this report. This is an employment matter that falls outside of our remit.
The resident complained that that a member of the landlord’s staff had privately sold a neighbour a CCTV camera, knowing that it would be used to collect evidence in a neighbour dispute that the member of staff was investigating. She said that this meant that the member of staff could not show impartiality in its investigation of her reports of ASB.
The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the landlord took the resident’s report seriously and acted proportionately and robustly in response. It:
1. Called the resident promptly after receiving the report and arranged to meet with her to take a full statement about what had happened.
2. Kept clear records of its investigation and the rationale for its decision making at all stages of the investigation process.
3. Followed the stages set out in its internal disciplinary policy document.
4. When the landlord had completed its internal investigation, it told the resident the outcome without delay.
5. Considered the resident’s concern about the officer being involved in her tenancy management going forward and reallocated staff to avoid this.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not give more specific information about the outcome of the investigation. She felt that, with the information provided, she was relying on the landlord’s account of the outcome without evidence. She also said that she could not assess whether she was happy with the outcome of the investigation without knowing what the action had been taken.
The landlord was required by legislation and employment practice to keep the personal information of its staff confidential. This includes information about the outcome of investigations into staff conduct. As such, the landlord was correct in saying that it could not share more information with the resident.
However, the landlord should have been clearer about the level of information it could share from the outset of its investigation into the resident’s reports. We did not see any evidence that the landlord told her what she could expect as an outcome of her report.
Some of the landlord’s correspondence may have led the resident to believe more information would be provided. For example, in a letter dated 21 October 2024 the landlord said that it would give the resident ‘updates and progress when required throughout the investigation process’. As the investigation was highly confidential, the landlord would not have been able to share updates with the resident, other than confirming if it was still investigating, or if the investigation was complete.
After the landlord arranged for a different staff member to be responsible for the resident’s tenancy, she resident asked whether the previous officer was still allocated to her neighbour. The landlord said they were not. However, the resident said that she was later given contradictory information by telephone, which the landlord did not dispute. While the landlord appropriately clarified its position, it did not explain whether it had investigated why inconsistent information was given. Addressing this would have demonstrated greater thoroughness and helped build trust in the landlord‑tenant relationship
While the communication failures discussed above would not have changed the outcome of the complaint, they caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. To put things right, we have awarded her compensation. The amount awarded is in line with our compensation guidance, available on our website, which says awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaints
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s expectation of landlord’s complaints handling processes is set out in our Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy align with those set out in the Code. The landlord met its complaint policy timescales in 3 of the 4 complaint responses it sent to the resident.
The Code allows landlords to extend complaint response timescales by up to 20 working days for unusually complex complaints. The landlord told the resident it needed additional time to consider its stage 2 response to complaint B. It met its revised deadline.
While the landlord extending the deadline for its complaint response will have been frustrating for the resident, in keeping her updated, the landlord will have mitigated the impact of the delay.
The landlord accepted that it had made some errors in its complaints responses. For example, it missed a reference number from a complaint response, and wrote that the landlord called the resident, when in fact the resident called the landlord. While these errors did not affect the outcome of the case, they did impact the resident’s trust in the landlord, so it was appropriate that the landlord apologised.
In one instance, the landlord increased its offer of compensation after the complaint had exhausted complaints process. While it is welcome that the landlord did not disengage with the case after its final response, this was still delayed redress for the resident.
When the resident first reported concerns about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff, she used the landlord’s online complaint form. The Code 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’. As she was complaining about the actions of a member of staff, the resident’s report met the definition of a complaint.
After it met with her to take a statement about her report, the landlord told her it would investigate the issue as a staff conduct concern outside of its complaints process. It wrote that it had spoken to the resident about this, and she had agreed with its decision.
This was not appropriate. Landlords’ internal disciplinary investigations are distinct from, and should not replace, their obligation to respond to a complaint raised by a resident. Maintaining clear boundaries between the two processes helps to manage residents’ expectations about their role in internal disciplinary decisions and the level of information they can expect about the outcome.
In addition, the landlord’s failure to respond at the earliest opportunity extended the complaints process for the resident. This caused her avoidable time and trouble.
We have awarded the resident compensation in recognition of the impact of the failures discussed above. Our compensation guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where there was a complaint handling failure which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Some of the landlord’s ASB case notes, including records of interviews, were brief or ambiguous. Improving the quality of case notes would help ensure transparency, support effective case management, and reduce the risk of misunderstandings or gaps in communication with residents.

Communication

The landlord may wish to implement staff guidance on how it should communicate with residents when it receives allegations of staff misconduct, to ensure that it manages resident expectations around information sharing of employment matters.