Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Karbon Homes Limited (202447406)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447406

Karbon Homes Limited

19 August 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom bungalow since December 2022.
  2. The resident made an ASB report to the landlord on 23 January 2023. Her report related to noise disturbance from her next door neighbour from late at night through to early morning. The landlord opened an ASB case to investigate the reports. Between January 2023 and January 2024, the resident continued to report ongoing ASB, mainly related to noise disturbance. The landlord closed its ASB case in January 2024 due to it finding no evidence of ASB.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 January 2024 via her MP about its decision to close its ASB case. She said she was unhappy with its handling and responses to her reports.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2024. It explained what actions it had taken and why it had closed the ASB case. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident made a further ASB report to the landlord on 17 March 2024 regarding noise disturbance. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 22 March 2024. Between March 2024 and July 2024, the resident continued to report ongoing noise disturbance. The landlord closed its ASB case on 9 July 2024 as it did not deem the reports ASB. The resident complained on 14 July 2024 about the landlord’s decision to close its ASB case. She was unhappy with its handling and response to her reports. The landlord agreed extensions for its stage 2 response with the resident on 19 and 30 August 2024.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2024. It explained what actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports. It said it considered it had investigated her reports thoroughly and acted in line with its policy. It explained why it had closed the ASB case and apologised for a misunderstanding about keeping the case open through the summer.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She asked us to investigate her complaint in February 2025. She said the noise disturbance was ongoing and requested the landlord provide compensation for the issues she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to us, the resident has raised new and ongoing issues she has with ASB and noise disturbance. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new or ongoing issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to her new complaint, she can ask the Ombudsman to investigate.
  2. Accordingly, this investigation centres on the events that took place between January 2023 and September 2024.
  3. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the reports about the neighbour’s behaviour and the reasonableness of its response. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour was responsible for ASB or noise nuisance. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord was in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.
  4. In addition, it is noted that there has been a significant amount of communication between the resident and the landlord. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, this report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident. Rather, our investigation has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.

  1. The resident first made a report of ASB to the landlord on 23 January 2023. Her report related to excessive noise from her neighbour’s property from late at night through to early morning.
  2. In response to the resident’s initial report, during January 2023, the landlord completed a risk assessment and visited the neighbour to discuss the ASB report. It also contacted the resident and made her aware of what tools were available for her to record incidents of ASB, such as its noise app and its I Witness service. I Witness is an out of hours service which uses trained individuals or teams to discreetly monitor and document instances of ASB.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity and that it will work with perpetrators to assess, support and encourage them to amend the behaviours which have contributed to reports of nuisance or ASB.
  4. The landlord’s response was in line with its ASB policy and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. Following the resident’s initial report, the resident continued to report ASB relating to noise disturbance to the landlord. After the landlord identified noise nuisance from the neighbour during a site visit on 8 February 2023, it issued the neighbour with tenancy warning letter. Later in February 2023, the landlord completed a sound test in both properties. This identified noise transference was mainly caused by loud noises and the banging of internal doors.
  6. The resident continued to regularly report ASB to the landlord during the period April to September 2023 mainly relating to noise disturbance through the night. During this period, it installed noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property for 2 weeks in April 2023. Following its review of the recordings, the landlord did not identify any instances of excessive noise. It attributed the noise recorded to everyday living sounds.
  7. In addition, during this period it agreed action plans with the resident and set her expectation around what type of noise it would consider excessive or which amounted to ASB. The resident used the I Witness service on several occasions during the above period, but this service did not record any ASB or excessive noise when attending the resident’s property.
  8. Following the landlord updating its risk assessment in June 2023, it reassigned the ASB case to its Safer Communities Team. The new case handler contacted the resident in June 2023. The resident made the landlord aware the neighbour talking in their bedroom late at night was disturbing her. The landlord, with the resident’s agreement, raised this with the neighbour and asked them to try have conversations during the night in a different room.
  9. The evidence shows it is clear the landlord continued to take the resident’s concerns seriously during the above period. The landlord continued to act in line with its ASB policy by liaising with both the resident and the neighbour. It assessed all her reports and kept the resident updated.
  10. The landlord’s ASB policy states it may not classify some reports as ASB, providing examples such as minor differences in lifestyle and reports of noise associated with everyday living. The landlord set the resident’s expectations regarding what noise it considered ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations.
  11. In September 2023, the landlord responded to emails from the resident’s MP about the ongoing issue. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 September 2023 to make it aware it had spelt her name wrong in its emails to her MP. The landlord called the resident on 27 September 2023 and apologised for spelling her name incorrectly. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for this mistake.
  12. The resident submitted further recordings through the landlord’s noise app in October 2023. The landlord reviewed each recording, but it identified no excessive noise. It updated the resident with its view and offered to install noise monitoring equipment. She agreed and the landlord installed this on 16 October 2023.
  13. The resident reported on 25 October 2023 that her neighbour had been abusive after knocking at her door. She also reported on 26 October 2023 that a threatening note had been dropped over the adjoining wall with the neighbour’s property. The resident reported this incident to the police.
  14. The landlord reviewed ring doorbell footage on 27 October 2023. It then called the resident to discuss the incident. It told her there was a breach of tenancy by her neighbour regarding the incident on 25 October 2023 and it would issue a tenancy warning. The resident said the police had attended and the neighbour’s daughter had admitted leaving the note to the police. The landlord said it would get an update from the police and if the neighbour’s daughter had admitted to leaving the note, it would issue a tenancy warning for this also.
  15. The evidence shows the landlord issued the neighbour with a tenancy warning letter and contacted the police in October 2023 regarding the incidents. The police informed the landlord of the situation and the actions it took regarding the reports from both the resident and the neighbour. It explained it had no evidence to show the neighbour’s daughter left the note and she disputed this. The landlord contacted the neighbour, who disputed the note came from anyone at their property.
  16. On 30 October 2023, the landlord received the report from its noise monitoring equipment. This found no evidence to support the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It noted there were recordings where the neighbour could be heard talking but it considered this was at a normal speaking volume.
  17. The landlord called the resident on 31 October 2023. It explained it had identified no ASB from its review of the recordings from its noise app and monitoring equipment. It said the police had not confirmed the neighbour admitted leaving the note and the neighbour had disputed this. Therefore, it could not issue a tenancy warning about the note being found.
  18. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take action against those who commit ASB and nuisance which is appropriate and proportionate.
  19. The landlord’s response to the incident on 25 October 2023 was in line with its policy to take proportionate action. Given this was the first reported incident of this type that the landlord had evidence of, its decision to issue a warning letter was appropriate. As the landlord had no evidence the neighbour left the threatening note, its decision to take no further action was reasonable.
  20. The resident continued to provide recordings of noise disturbance in November 2023. The landlord reviewed the recordings but did not consider any demonstrated ASB. During this month, it incorrectly sent a letter addressed to the resident to the wrong address. It did not send this letter to the neighbour but another person on the same street.
  21. The evidence shows the landlord visited the recipient on 16 November 2023,who said they had passed it onto the resident without opening the letter. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2023 to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake. The resident responded on 20 November 2023 and thanked the landlord for its explanation. She said while frustrating no real harm was caused.
  22. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake in sending correspondence to the wrong address. This was a fair way to put things right, given the mistake cause no detriment to the resident.
  23. During December 2023 and January 2024, the resident continued to report noise disturbance during the night. The landlord reviewed the recordings, but it did not consider there was any evidence of ASB. It completed a review of the resident’s case on 16 January 2024 and decided to close the case due to having no evidence of ASB. The landlord sent the resident a case closure letter.
  24. The landlord’s policy is silent on when it will close an ASB case. However, the evidence shows the landlord had listened to the recordings provided by the resident. It identified no ASB from its review of the recordings or its noise monitoring equipment. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to close the case as it considered it was unable to take further action on the evidence available.
  25. The resident complained to her MP on 22 January 2024 about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. The MP forwarded her complaint to the landlord on 24 January 2024. In her complaint, the resident stated she was unhappy that the landlord had decided to close the ASB case. She said she was unhappy the Safter Communities Officer never visited her once since taking over the case (in June 2023) despite being aware of the distress the issue caused her.
  26. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2024. It thanked the resident for discussing her concerns with it on 29 January 2024. It acknowledged the resident had sent in over 400 recordings through the noise app. It said it had installed noise recording equipment at her property on 2 occasions for a duration of 2 weeks each time. It explained the noise recorded was not at a level perceived as statutory noise nuisance or for it to take any action against the neighbour.
  27. The landlord explained it had sent the resident’s neighbour 2 warning letters. It said this was an appropriate action with the evidence it had at that time. It explained it had closed the case following a review, as there was no independent evidence to substantiate the level of noise the resident was reporting. It said it agreed with the decision to close the case, but this did not mean it would not reopen the case if there was evidence to support the resident’s complaints.
  28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s unhappiness that the Safer Communities Officer never completed a home visit. It explained due to the number of complaints it receives and its resources, it was unable to do this on every occasion. It said it did not consider its officer completing a home visit would have changed the outcome of any decision it made during its investigation. The landlord explained that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  29. The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and reasonably addressed each aspect of the complaint. The response explained the actions the landlord had taken and the reasons for its decision.
  30. While the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response slightly outside the timescales of its policy, there is no evidence this caused the resident detriment. It called the resident on 16 February 2024 to explain the reasons for its decision. This was a positive action for the landlord to take to improve the landlord tenant relationship.
  31. On 17 March 2024, the resident reported noise disturbance to the landlord. Her report related to noise disturbance during the night. She requested the landlord reopen its investigation and resolve the issue. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 22 March 2024 and sent the resident an acknowledgment letter. It also completed a risk assessment.
  32. The resident submitted noise recordings throughout March, April, and May 2024. The landlord reviewed the recordings, but it determined there was nothing substantial that required it to take enforcement action.
  33. The landlord visited the resident on 11 June 2024 and again on 2 July 2024. During these visits, it discussed the location of the resident’s bedroom, as it considered she would not hear the noise if she slept in a room that was not adjoined with the neighbour’s property. It asked the resident if she would consider relocating her bedroom, but it noted she declined for various reasons, such as the cost of new carpets and bedroom furniture.
  34. Following a case review on 9 July 2024, the landlord decided to close its ASB case. It recorded this was because even though the reported noise was late at night, it considered the nature of the noise to be everyday living noise. It determined there was no evidence to proceed with enforcement action. It wrote to the resident to explain its decision and offered to move her furniture into a room on the opposite side of her property. We have not been provided with a copy of this letter.
  35. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to move the resident’s bedroom furniture to another room as a means to try a solution to improve the situation for the resident.
  36. The landlord’s decision to close the case due to insufficient evidence to take further action, while frustrating for the resident, was a reasonable in the circumstances. Between 23 January 2023 and 9 July 2024, the resident had submitted 516 recordings. The evidence shows the landlord listened to every recording and reached a view that it was normal household noise and not at a level it could take further action regarding.
  37. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 July 2024. The resident expressed disbelief that the landlord could not hear the noise disturbance on the recordings she submitted. She explained the noises she could hear between 11pm and 7am, saying this was unacceptable and affected her sleep.
  38. The resident complained about poor communication from the landlord. She said it visited her property on 2 July 2024 and asked her to continue to send recordings. However, just 8 days later it sent her a letter saying it was closing her ASB case. The resident expressed her unhappiness with the landlord’s handling over the last 18-months, such as it sending a letter to the wrong address and spelling her name incorrectly in an email to her MP.
  39. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 September 2024. It summarised its stage 1 response and the timeline of the 2 ASB cases. The landlord explained the resident had submitted over 500 recordings via its noise app. It said it had compared these to recordings on cases where it had taken tenancy enforcement action. It explained on those cases unacceptable loud household noise could clearly be heard. However, on the resident’s recordings the noise was either much quieter or not audible at all.
  40. The landlord explained under its ASB policy it may not take action for all cases of noise amongst neighbours. It said when it discussed the case with the resident on 16 August 2024, she said the noise levels had improved since she first raised the issue. However, there was still noise at night including a frustrating tapping noise. The landlord said it did not dispute the resident was hearing these noises, but it agreed with its decision that those noises did not constitute a breach of tenancy it could act upon. Due to this, it did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
  41. The landlord acknowledged that following a home visit said it would keep her case open over the summer following, only for it to then close the case in July 2024. The landlord said it had spoken to its team about this. Its team said it would be inappropriate to keep ASB cases open for long periods when no actionable evidence had been provided. It acknowledged there had been a miscommunication regarding this and apologised.
  42. The landlord concluded that it was satisfied it was doing everything it could to manage the noise within its policies. It said the recordings she provided were not at a sufficient noise level for it to act. It explained if the resident had a new complaint or if noise levels increase, to let it know and it would investigate.
  43. The landlord’s stage 2 response was thorough and reasonably addressed the issues the resident raised with its handling and decision to close the ASB case. However, the landlord’s response did not address the resident’s concerns it had misspelt her name in correspondence or sent a letter for her to the wrong address. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to reiterate its previous apologies for these failings, which was a fair resolution to put things right at the time those mistakes occurred.
  44. The landlord did issue its stage 2 response outside the 20-working day timescale of its policy. However, it did agree extensions with the resident before its response was overdue, and it issued its response within the subsequent timescale it agreed. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord again called the resident to explain its decision, which was a positive action to take.
  45. We do not underestimate the distress the resident has reported she has sustained and it is clear that the noise disturbance has had a significant impact on her. However, based on the evidence available to us, the landlord has appropriately sought to manage the reported ASB using the tools available to it.
  46. We also acknowledge that in order to have a realistic prospect of a successful enforcement application, landlords have to show to a court that it has taken all reasonable steps to try and resolve the situation before pursuing legal action. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports have been reasonable and proportionate given the evidence available to it and the prevailing circumstances. It has acted in accordance with its obligations, following its policy and procedures.
  47. However, the resident consistently reported ASB for over 18-months, during which time she expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not resolved the issue. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the community trigger or ASB case review gives victims the option to request a review of the actions taken, where a victim feels the ASB has not been resolved appropriately.
  48. We have seen no evidence that the landlord ever discussed the community trigger with the resident or made the resident aware of the process. The landlord missed an opportunity to ensure the resident was aware of her right to have her case reviewed if she felt it had not resolved the issue appropriately.
  49. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports were reasonable and appropriate. There were opportunities within its handling where the landlord could of improved its service, however, these instances do not amount to a service failure and no detriment was caused to the resident. This leads to a determination of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.