Manchester City Council (202427029)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427029

Manchester City Council

03 July 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).

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2009. The property is a 1-bedroom first–floor flat in a block consisting of 6 flats.
  2. The resident had been reporting issues with ASB from his neighbour (also a tenant of the landlord) since January 2023. The ASB included loud music, shouting and slamming doors. The landlord confirmed that the reports were sporadic and not frequent. In June 2023, it told the resident that unless the ASB was consistent, persistent and excessive, it could not take action. After an incident on 9 October 2023, the resident reported further issues with noise to the police and landlord. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 23 October 2023 advising of the reports and asked that they take part in mediation.
  3. The resident made further reports of noise to the landlord on 1 and 8 November 2023. On 4 December 2023 he made a formal complaint about its handling of the noise and ASB from the neighbour, asking for them to be evicted.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2023. It said:
    1. The disturbances the resident had reported were sporadic and not for prolonged periods of time. Unless the ASB issues were consistent, persistent and excessive it would not be able to take further action.
    2. It had referred the case for mediation but the neighbour did not engage with the process and did not respond to telephone calls and texts messages. As mediation was voluntary, it was unable to pursue this further.
    3. The resident had not supplied substantial evidence that could be used to pursue a civil injunction. The emails he had submitted lacked details such as dates, times and a description of the reported incident.
    4. The resident had been given a link to its online nuisance diary, but it was unable to see any evidence that he had used it.
    5. It had reviewed the case and concluded that it would be unable to consider any form of legal action against the neighbour.
    6. It acknowledged the resident had asked it to evict the neighbour. This was unrealistic and not something it was considering.
    7. It had acted upon the resident’s reports, conducted relevant investigations, and issued warnings to the neighbour. For these reasons it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. On 9 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that he wanted to escalate his complaint because of the ongoing ASB from his neighbour.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. It said:
    1. Its officers had been responsive to the resident’s contacts and had provided him with guidance and support on how to capture evidence in a format that could be used to progress the case.
    2. The evidence of noise and ASB that the resident had submitted was “very limited” and did not prove persistent or excessive noise nuisance or ASB. It was therefore unable to progress the case to legal action with the available evidence.
    3. It had acted upon the resident’s reports and taken reasonable actions, including issuing a formal warning to the neighbour.
    4. It believed there was an issue with noise and ASB from the neighbour and it was willing to continue working with the resident to collect the necessary evidence.
    5. It had spoken to the resident on 24 May 2024 and discussed the evidence required. It had also highlighted the importance of using the tools that it provided, such as the noise app and online log sheets. He had agreed to use both for future recordings.
    6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.


Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. After receiving the stage 2 response, the resident continued to report ASB. The landlord engaged with the resident and reopened the case a number of times but then closed it again due to a lack of evidence. We understand that, as of June 2025, both parties have agreed to take part in mediation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. As the case is ongoing it is not possible for this investigation to cover continuing events. The investigation will therefore focus on the period from October 2023, just before the resident’s complaint, up until 28 September 2024. This is because the resident’s ASB case remained open with the landlord after it had issued its stage 2 response until that date. The case was subsequently reopened again; however, due to the availability of evidence and the fact that no further complaint has been brought to the landlord, it will not form part of our investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreements highlight both its own responsibility and the responsibilities of tenants in relation to ASB. It states:
    1. Clause 4.1 states that tenants are responsible for the behaviour of every person living in or visiting their home and in the locality around their home.
    2. Clause 4.2 states that a tenant or anyone visiting their home must not cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance, including loud music, arguing, door slamming, or offensive drunkenness.
    3. In clause 4.20 the landlord commits to providing help and advice to a tenant who reports ASB. It states it will investigate a tenant’s report, keep them informed, and take appropriate action to tackle the problem.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it manages such behaviour. When it receives a report of ASB, it says it will:
    1. Interview the reporting party, in order to:
      1. Confirm all relevant facts and to discuss an action plan.
      2. Inform them that they are expected to keep a record of any further events and report these events to the investigating officer.
    2. Conduct a wider investigation, which may involve:
      1. Contacting other potentially affected parties or witnesses.
      2. Making enquiries with relevant council departments, partner agencies and the police.
    3. Interview the alleged perpetrator, in order to:
      1. Provide a fair opportunity for them to respond to the ASB allegations.
      2. Provide an explanation of the possible consequences of the alleged behaviour.
      3. Summarise the next steps in the investigation.
  3. The policy states that the landlord will assess each case on the information available, and the actions taken will be proportionate and bespoke to the circumstances of each case. In the first instance the landlord will use informal actions before taking legal action. Informal actions include mediation, providing information and advice, investigatory interviews, warning interviews, and acceptable behaviour contracts. Legal options include injunctions, community protection notices, breach proceedings, and ASB possession proceedings.
  4. The policy confirms that in certain circumstances, action may not be possible due to the inability to obtain sufficient evidence to prove the matter to the relevant standard. ASB cases will be closed in a timely manner so that they are not open longer than necessary. When the landlord takes the decision to close a case, it will inform the person making the reports.
  5. In the landlord’s pre–case warning letter to the neighbour, it highlighted the nature of the noise at unsocial hours, which was reportedly causing a disturbance to the resident. It said it had referred the case for mediation but was aware the neighbour had not engaged. It asked that they take part and clarified that if they did not and there were further reports of ASB it would conduct a full investigation. The pre–action letter was appropriate and fairly put the neighbour on notice regarding the impact of their behaviour and the potential consequences.
  6. After the resident’s next reports on 1 and 8 November 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case. On 8 November 2023 it spoke to the resident, completed an ASB case report and detailed an action plan. In a follow–up email it asked the resident to keep a diary of events and to use the out-of-hours phone number it had supplied. These steps followed those outlined in its ASB policy.
  7. On 16 November 2023, the landlord attempted to contact the other occupants of the block to determine if they were also experiencing issues with the neighbour. The records show that it was only able to speak to 1 person, who reported no issues. There were also no other reports on file from other occupants. On 17 November 2023, the landlord contacted relevant support agencies, who confirmed the neighbour did not have an open case with them. The same day the landlord contacted the police to request information. Additionally, it wrote to the neighbour asking them to attend an appointment at its offices to discuss their tenancy and the ASB reports. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it was taking the necessary steps to conduct a wider investigation into the resident’s reports.
  8. It is not clear if the neighbour attended the appointment at the landlord’s offices. However, it visited the neighbour’s property on 27 November 2023. The neighbour admitted that on occasion there had been some noise from their property but disputed they played loud music. They said that they only ever had 2 visitors that were their only friends. The neighbour confirmed they felt intimidated by the resident’s regular reports and CCTV cameras. The landlord’s visit was a necessary step, which indicated a strong and fair approach to the ASB reports.
  9. The resident emailed further reports of loud music, shouting and doors banging that had taken place in the early hours of the 30 November 2023 and 3 December 2023. On 4 December 2023, the landlord issued the neighbour with a written warning letter. The letter referred to its recent visit and the new reports. It advised the neighbour of the specific tenancy clauses they were breaching. It also explained the methods it would use to collect further evidence and what actions it could take against them. The letter was an appropriate escalation of its actions in response to the ASB reports.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2023 in response to his recent reports. It advised that in order to investigate his allegations it required a written account of what happened along with his CCTV footage. It confirmed it could not accept the footage without the written account. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 6 December 2023. It explained that his neighbour felt that his constant reports were harassment and that they were concerned about the resident’s use of CCTV. The landlord asked that he direct the CCTV away from the neighbour’s door. It also provided the resident with relevant information regarding the rules on the use of CCTV. The guidance detailed what he must comply with to ensure the footage he supplied was compliant with legislation and therefore useable as evidence. The letter shows a balanced approach to the investigation and positively demonstrates the landlord’s consideration of the rights of both parties involved.
  11. The case records from 30 January 2024 noted that the landlord had not received any further evidence and there had been no recent reports of ASB. The officer documented that they would review the case again in the future. On 19 February 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it had not received any further reports and was closing the case. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policy.
  12. On 6 March 2024, the landlord was conducting a visit of the communal gardens when it met another resident of the block. They confirmed they had also been experiencing nuisance from the neighbour. They described the nuisance as singing and shouting in the early hours of the morning as well as doors banging and people coming and going late at night. This resident also informed the landlord that they had made reports previously and had been asked to complete diary sheets. They confirmed they had started the process but then stopped. The fact that the landlord was apparently not aware of the previous reports this neighbour had made may indicate an instance of insufficient record keeping and/or information sharing. Also, at the start of the investigation it may have been helpful for it to have written to the 4 other occupants of the block asking them to make contact if they were being disturbed by ASB.
  13. As a result of the conversation and the fact that it corroborated the resident’s reports, the landlord reopened the case. This was an appropriate step, which showed a willingness to progress the investigation. On 11 March 2024, the resident himself made a report using the landlord’s online log system. The landlord then contacted the resident on 13 March 2023 and issued him with the noise app, highlighting its importance in gathering useable and credible evidence. It also asked that he provide a written note for each noise app recording. It was right that the landlord provided this information to ensure the resident was aware of the evidential requirements of his experiences for it to take enforcement action.
  14. The landlord visited the neighbour on 18 March 2023 to inform them that it had received further reports. It followed up the same day with a tenancy warning letter. It reminded the neighbour of the potential breaches of the specific clauses in their tenancy agreement. The visit by the landlord shows that it was adhering to the steps in its policy by taking appropriate actions when it obtained supporting evidence.
  15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2023. It said it had not received any recordings from him. It again advised of the importance of evidence collected on the noise app. It asked if he needed any assistance with the app, offering to visit him at home if required. The resident then reported issues with people shouting and banging late at night via email on 5, 8 and 15 April 2024. The landlord asked why he had not used the noise app, and he said he could not log in. On 16 April 2023, the landlord asked that he let it know when he was free so that it could assist him with the noise app. The same day the resident confirmed he had registered again with a different email address and the noise app had worked. The landlord requested that he send a test recording so it could verify the noise app was operational.
  16. The resident submitted a recording from the noise app on 9 May 2024. When received the landlord told him that the only noise that could be heard on the recording was a clock ticking. The resident confirmed he had video and audio of the evidence on his phone which he would forward to the landlord, which it agreed to review. Upon reviewing the evidence, the landlord confirmed that it considered the noise to be a nuisance. It went on to say, “we need to show a pattern of this level of noise to take action… to prove noise nuisance by the court’s standards”.
  17. We do not disagree with this statement. However, having confirmed a nuisance, the landlord could have considered what other actions it could take to gather supporting evidence. For instance, it could have requested additional patrols of the area over weekends by its out-of-hours team or the police. We accept that these requests may have been refused, but they should have been pursued regardless. Also, the landlord could have considered a good behaviour contract. It is acknowledged that its policy says such contracts are “usually” for 10-17 year olds. In this instance, where evidence was difficult to obtain, it would have been reasonable to have considered it. In addition, once it confirmed a nuisance it could have involved the council’s environmental health team to explore the installation of noise monitoring equipment or the possibility of an abatement notice where a nuisance was likely to recur.
  18. We do not consider the absence of the above actions as failures, as the landlord did not act contrary to its policy and there was no demonstrable detriment to the resident. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice if the landlord had recorded that it had considered them, or any other options, and why those options had been ruled out.
  19. In line with its ASB policy the landlord held a case review on 22 May 2024 which involved the investigating officer and their manager. They decided to keep the case open due to the continued reports of ASB. The same day, the landlord contacted the second resident. They confirmed they had been disturbed by noise and that it was happening 4 nights per week. The landlord sent another warning letter to the neighbour on 24 May 2024, advising that it had begun its noise recording procedure to gather evidence. If said that if the evidence gathered supported the reports it would consider further action against them.
  20. Between 30 May 2024 and 24 June 2024, the landlord contacted the second resident several times to set up the noise app and ask for them to report the noise. However, it was unable to reach them. The attempted contacts are evidence that the landlord was trying to pursue a different avenue of evidence collection to support action in the case.
  21. On 24 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had not received any further recordings and was going to have to close the case. It had a telephone call with him on 12 July 2024 to discuss the case and illustrate what actions it had taken in relation to his reports of ASB. In the call the resident confirmed the noise had improved drastically and that the issue was now more about the banging doors. The parties agreed to close the case and the landlord would write again to the resident requesting they were mindful about slamming doors. It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the case closure with the resident and obtained his agreement before taking action.
  22. On 4 August 2024, the resident submitted a noise recording of loud talking and music, which the landlord considered excessive. He submitted 2 further recordings on 7 August 2024, which it did not consider as being excessive. It asked the resident to continue monitoring due to the requirement to prove a pattern of the behaviour to progress the case. It also wrote to the neighbour advising of the recent noise reports. The landlord’s position that it needed to evidentially prove that there was a regular occurrence of the noise and behaviour was reasonable. However, we can understand the frustration likely felt by the resident due to what he was experiencing.
  23. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2024. It said that it had not received any further noise recordings and could not prove an ongoing pattern of noise due to the irregular reports. It closed the case on 28 September 2024. Overall, we find the landlord undertook a thorough investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB. It made a referral for mediation between the parties which was an appropriate step. It also visited the neighbour on a number of occasions and sent tenancy warning letters. It issued the noise app and offered additional support and instruction to the resident on how to use it. The landlord’s notes were thorough and its decisions well documented and reasoned. Considering the above, though there may be some minor points for internal reflection, we find that there was no maladministration in its 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.