From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Luton Borough Council (202342309)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342309

Luton Borough Council

22 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including noise nuisance.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who was a local authority. The tenancy was assigned to the resident on 26 September 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a low-rise block. The resident lives below the “neighbour”.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate the resident had no known vulnerabilities. However, the resident told the landlord in November 2022 that she had physical and mental health issues. The neighbour also had vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident made the first report about noise nuisance from the neighbour in November 2022, which included loud music, the dragging of furniture, and shouting. The landlord investigated the matter with the resident and the neighbour. It later asked the local authority environmental protection team to carry out noise monitoring, after its attempts to resolve the matter (together with external partners) failed. The landlord and the environmental protection team were in regular contact between February 2023 and November 2023 in relation to the case and its direction. The landlord closed the case in November 2023.
  4. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 7 December 2023. The resident said the landlord should do something to stop the neighbour dragging furniture and banging around at unsocial hours. The local authority corporate complaints team allocated the complaint to a manager within the environmental protection team, the next day.
  5. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 11 December 2023. This considered the environmental protection team’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour. It did not consider the landlord’s involvement in the case or the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the neighbour.
  6. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 18 December 2023 as she did not agree the noise from the neighbour was normal. The complaint was allocated to the head of service responsible for the environmental protection team.
  7. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 15 January 2024 upholding the original stage 1 complaint outcome. The resident was directed to progress any further dissatisfaction to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The stage 2 complaint response did not consider the landlord’s involvement in the case or the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the neighbour.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to us in February 2024. The resident said the noise from the neighbour was unbearable and suggested the landlord was unwilling to sort the issue out because the neighbour had mental health issues. The resident told us on 10 September 2025 that she continued to be disturbed by ASB and noise nuisance from the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We cannot consider complaints, which in our opinion, concern matters in respect of local authorities, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Therefore, this investigation will not assess the actions of the environmental protection team. But it is reasonable for us to consider the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB made to it by the resident, even if the landlord did not, given the landlord tenant relationship.
  2. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between November 2022 and January 2024. This being the date the resident first reported noise nuisance to the landlord and issue of the stage 2 complaint response. For clarity, our role is not to establish whether the ASB and noise nuisance reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about this was in line with its obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident has referenced the impact of the noise nuisance on her mental and physical health. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. However, our investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB, including noise nuisance

  1. The landlord had a joint working protocol with the local authority environmental protection team and the local authority ASB team for dealing with ASB and reports of noise nuisance. The ASB team will deal with serious cases of ASB and noise cases. The landlord will investigate all other reports of ASB from its housing tenants, excluding noise reports, which it will refer to the environmental protection team for investigation. The teams will keep each other informed, will work together, will take a resident centred approach, will keep residents informed of any action, and will take joint action where possible.
  2. The resident first reported ASB from the neighbour to the landlord on 13 November 2022. The resident said the neighbour was playing loud music and was dragging furniture around the flat. She explained she had mental and physical health issues and the matter needed nipping in the bud. She added that the situation was causing her stress, was giving her chest pains, and was stopping her from sleeping.
  3. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord does not consider everyday living situations or conflicts of lifestyle, which are not intended to cause nuisance and annoyance, as ASB. But it will investigate reports of persistent noise nuisance and verbal abuse, as ASB. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2022 explaining that it was investigating her reports of ASB and committing to visit her on 2 December 2022 to get a fuller picture of the issues. This was in line with its ASB policy, which states the landlord will contact the complaint within 5 working days to arrange an initial interview.
  4. The landlord visited the resident on 2 December 2022 as it had committed. The resident explained, in addition to the reports she had already made, that she often heard shouting and arguing from the neighbour’s flat, said she had been sworn at, and suggested she often found items in the communal garden that had been thrown out of the neighbour’s window. It committed to investigating the ASB and told the resident to report the noise nuisance to the environmental protection team so this could be investigated. This was in line with its joint protocol.
  5. However, its ASB policy also stated, that it would carry out a risk assessment, would offer additional measures of support(where appropriate), and would draw up an action plan explaining how the case would be dealt with, during its initial visit. There is no evidence this happened, which was inappropriate and unreasonable, given the resident had referenced the impact the situation was having on her health. It is reasonable to conclude that it also failed to update its records, reflecting the resident’s declared vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour in a timely manner of the resident’s reports of ASB, by carrying out an unannounced visit and leaving a calling card. It then wrote to the neighbour on 15 November 2022 setting out the allegations made, reminding the neighbour of her tenancy obligations, and confirming a date when it would visit to “get her side of things”. This informal written warning was consistent with the landlord’s early intervention commitments set out in its ASB policy.
  7. The neighbour did not immediately engage with the landlord to discuss the allegations, in despite of the landlord’s best efforts. So, it was positive that it wrote to the resident on 10 January 2023 confirming that it was still investigating, would provide an update once its investigation had finished, and reminding her to report any noise nuisance to its environmental protection team.
  8. The landlord actively pursued the neighbour until access was achieved on 17 January 2023 when the neighbour denied the allegations. The evidence suggests the landlord had some concerns following the visit, so sought assistance from a partner agency. This was an appropriate course of action in the circumstances of the case.
  9. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it understands that sometimes, perpetrators of ASB also need help. So, in addition to supporting victims and tacking ASB, it will work with perpetrators to influence behaviour change, through its own interventions and through working with partner agencies (where appropriate). It was positive therefore that the landlord revisited the neighbour with a partner agency 2 days later, when the neighbour admitted there was truth to some of the allegations. The landlord and its partner agency concluded that the neighbour required urgent specialist support, which its partner agency committed to arrange.
  10. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 30 January 2023. It explained it had made a referral on their behalf for additional support and suggested she ensure there was no further cause for complaint. This suggests the landlord was hopeful the matter had been resolved by its early intervention measures.
  11. The landlord updated the resident on the same day that it would monitor the case for 4 weeks and provided no further reports were made, it would close the case. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which stated that cases would be closed if the ASB stops or there is a lack of evidence, which would prevent further action being considered. It reminded the resident to report any incidents of noise nuisance to the environmental protection team, which was appropriate advice given the joint protocol.
  12. The resident reported ongoing issues with the neighbour throughout February 2023. This included dragging things across the floor, using the washing machine in the evening, banging, and raised voices. The landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy and joint protocol by:

a.     Keeping the case open, continuing to investigate the ASB, providing the resident with an update, and requesting that she report noise issues to the environmental protection team.

b.     Requesting its environmental protection team to carry out noise monitoring, to evidence the noise and allow it to take appropriate action as may be appropriate. This resulted in the environmental protection team opening a noise case of their own on 27 February 2023.

c.      Endeavouring to obtain evidence from other neighbours, to establish other potential witnesses.

d.     Actively engaging with a range of agencies to help secure a lasting resolution for the resident and provide targeted support for the neighbour to change behaviour.

  1. But it did not explore whether there was any additional support the resident needed, in line with its ASB policy, which stated “support will be provided at each stage of the ASB investigation”. Opportunity was also missed to agree an action plan with the resident, with timescales for resolution.
  2. The resident continued to report issues with neighbour between March 2023 and June 2023. Over this timeframe:

a.     The landlord visited the resident on 9 March 2023 to discuss the ongoing issues. The resident reported the neighbour was still dragging things about. The landlord explained that it would need to wait for the environmental protection team to provide it with noise recordings, before deciding on its next steps. This was reasonable, given any enforcement action would be dependent upon, although not exclusively, evidence showing the extent, nature, and impact of the ASB on others.

b.     The landlord asked the resident on 28 April 2023 to let it know if she needed any additional support or referrals made, for the problems she had encountered. While this was positive, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have considered this at a much earlier stage. However, we note that the resident did not make contact with the landlord in response to this, which may suggest the resident did not consider any additional support was required.

c.      It did provide regular updates to the resident of the action it was taking, despite the absence of an action plan, except for in May 2023. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord herself on 7 June 2023 for an update.

d.     It continued to work with partner agencies to try to support the neighbour and bring about a change in behaviour. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. We note the landlord also showed reasonableness, by exploring non legal options for resolution, in conjunction with those agencies.

e.     The environmental protection team installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property at the landlord’s request, which evidenced a statutory noise nuisance from the neighbour’s flat. This resulted in a noise abatement notice being served on the neighbour in June 2023. This decision was made in liaison with the landlord, in line with its protocol.

f.        The landlord served a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour in June 2023 after the statutory noise nuisance was evidenced. The landlord took this course of action in liaison with the environmental protection team and its partner agencies. Again, this was in line with its protocol and shows the landlord was treating the matter with the seriousness it deserved.

g.     The landlord updated the resident of the action it had taken on 15 June 2023. It said she should let it know if there were any further incidents and it would consider taking legal action against the tenancy.

  1. The resident reported no further incidents of ASB to the landlord between July 2023 and September 2023. But she did continue reporting noise nuisance to the environment protection team. Over this timeframe:

a.     The environmental protection team installed noise recording equipment in the resident’s property between 11 July 2023 and 18 July 2023. However, no statutory noise nuisance was identified.

b.     The landlord sent a reminder letter to the neighbour on 24 August 2024 that it would take further action against her tenancy if there were any further breaches of tenancy.

c.      The environmental protection team installed noise recording equipment in the resident’s property again between 22 September 2023 and 29 September 2023. However, again, no statutory noise nuisance was identified.

d.     The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2023 noting that she had not reported any recent incidents of ASB to it about the neighbour. And indicated it would close the case within the next 10 days unless the resident provided evidence to the contrary. This suggests the landlord may not have checked the latest position with the environmental protection team. But this did not significantly disadvantage the resident, because the landlord kept the case open after the resident updated it on 8 October 2023.

  1. The landlord and the environmental protection team liaised during October 2023 and November 2023 concerning the results of the noise monitoring, in line with the joint protocol. We note the environmental protection team felt the neighbour had responded positively to the noise abatement notice, as she was no longer playing loud music and there was no evidence of any shouting. It suggested that any noise that was heard on the recordings, was not excessive or unreasonable. We note that the resident did not report any further incidents of ASB to the landlord after 8 October 2023.
  2. On this basis it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the ASB had ceased and that any noise the resident was hearing, was not deliberate or intended to cause the resident nuisance and annoyance. When the landlord closed the case on 10 November 2023 it committed to reopening the case if further information became available, which required further investigation. This was fair and in line with its ASB policy. We note that the environmental protection team closed their noise case shortly after this.
  3. It was evident that this was a particularly challenging case for the landlord. And we do not underestimate the distress caused to the resident by the situation with the neighbour. Overall, our investigation found the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance well and took a robust course of action to address this. However, our investigation also identified some failings. In summary:

a.     The landlord:

  1. Was responsive to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. Endeavoured to keep the resident updated on the action it was taking, although there were some gaps in its communications.
  3. Used a range of measures to tackle the ASB and noise nuisance reported, including early intervention warnings, non-legal options, and enforcement notices.
  4. Worked in conjunction with the environmental protection team to evidence the noise nuisance, which helped to inform the direction of the case.
  5. Worked extensively with partner agencies to provide support to the neighbour, to encourage behaviour change.
  6. Showed reasonableness, by expressing a willingness to reopen the case, if further information became available at a later date, which required further investigation.

b.     But it did not:

  1. Carry out a risk assessment with the resident or consider if the resident required any support at the outset of the case, in line with its ASB policy. However, we accept the resident did not take up the landlord’s offer of additional support when it offered this later in the investigation.
  2. Agree an action plan (with timescales for action), at any stage of its investigation, in line with its ASB policy. But we accept, the resident was kept apprised of the action it was taking, through the landlord’s updates.
  1. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB, including noise nuisance.
  2. To remedy the complaint, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings we identified. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss any new incidents of ASB and noise nuisance that may have arisen beyond the timeframe of this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The local authority manages complaints about all service areas, including complaints to the landlord, via its corporate complaint’s policy. Once a complaint is received, its central team will log and acknowledge the complaint. It will then allocate the complaint to the appropriate service for investigation and response. The corporate complaint’s policy states that where a complaint covers more than one service area, it will allocate the complaint to a lead service area who will co-ordinate a single response.
  2. The central team failed to recognise, when logging, acknowledging, and allocating the complaint for investigation, that the stage 1 complaint covered 2 service areas. So, the central team did not appoint a lead service area to investigate the complaint. This resulted in the stage 1 complaint investigation focusing solely on the environmental protection team’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The central team missed opportunity to put this right when allocating the stage 2 complaint for investigation.
  3. As a consequence, the landlord was prevented from considering whether its own actions had been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and if its actions were in line with its policies and procedures. This was a serious failing and demonstrates an inadequate level of understanding by the central complaints team over the complaints that were raised by the resident. This resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident, who then had to bring her complaint to us.
  4. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. To put things right, the landlord must pay £150 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from the failures we identified in complaint handling. It must also apologise to the resident for these failings and carry out a review into what went wrong.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:

a.     Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including noise nuisance.

b.     Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings we identified. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
  2. The landlord must pay £150 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from failures in its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
  4. The landlord must carry out a review of what went wrong when allocating the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint for investigation and identify what could be done differently. It must provide us with a copy of its findings, within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss any new incidents of ASB and noise nuisance that may have arisen since the stage 2 complaint was issued and agree how the matter will be addressed.
  2. The landlord should ask the resident to confirm any current vulnerabilities and update its records according.