Midland Heart Limited (202307595)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307595

Midland Heart Limited

27 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2019. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat located on the first floor. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident did make the landlord aware during the complaint that the issues were impacting his mental health. The resident was making reports about noise from his neighbour and for the purpose of this report the neighbour will be referred to as neighbour A. Neighbour A is also a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord twice. He asked the landlord to escalate his case. On 28 February 2024 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to request a stage 1 complaint response. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB and its failure to raise a complaint.
  3. On 6 March 2024 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. It acknowledged that since it had closed the resident’s previous ASB case in November 2022 the resident had continued to report noise nuisance.
    2. When the resident informed it that he did not have a mobile phone to use the noise app it should have done more to support him with alternative methods. This caused a delay in the resident’s concerns being escalated. It apologised for its failing and said that it would review its process.
    3. When it did contact the resident, it had offered restorative justice. It understood that the resident had declined as he felt that the issues had gone on too long. While it communicated with the resident during this period it failed to consider what further action could be taken.
    4. It had tried to work with the resident’s neighbour in sourcing alternative housing due to the overcrowding. As this had not progressed it agreed that tenancy action would now be appropriate.
    5. On 1 March 2024 it had installed noise measuring equipment in the resident’s property to assist it to better understand what the resident was experiencing while it continued to take action and monitor the case.
    6. It had considered short term solutions and offered to install new carpet which would be thicker and have noise reducing underlay. It would discuss this further with the resident and also whether a move to a new property could be an option.
    7. It was aware that the resident had said that the issues had affected his mental health. It would work with the resident and discuss any additional support it could sign post him to. It provided its insurance information should the resident wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
    8. It acknowledged the delays in its initial response to the resident’s complaint and apologised. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £1000 compensation.
  4. On 6 March 2024 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated. He said that he agreed with what the landlord had said but he had heard this before. He wanted the complaint to be overseen by the Housing Ombudsman as he did not wish to live with the behaviour anymore.
  5. On 19 March 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. It was satisfied that all aspects of the complaint had been addressed and that the compensation it had offered was reasonable. It was sorry for the experiences that the resident had to go through.
    2. It had spoken to neighbour A and asked for the noise to be kept to a minimum and to address the amount of people living in the property. It explained that it was unable to provide full details, but it said appropriate formal action was being taken in relation to the overcrowding.
    3. It had reviewed the noise recordings but was unable to identify noise to the level that would be deemed anti-social. It re-offered mediation if the resident wished to participate. It re-offered noise reducing underlay and carpet. It also reiterated its offer of a move.
  6. The resident contacted this Service in April 2024 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said that the ASB had impacted his mental health.
  7. The resident raised a further complaint with his landlord about the ASB and other issues in January 2025. The complaint was concluded in March 2025 and has since been escalated to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has already raised a formal complaint with the landlord about similar issues which was concluded in July 2022. The complaint was then escalated to this Service and determined in April 2023. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from November 2022 onwards, which were the subject of the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 19 March 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states when it receives a report of ASB it will complete an initial risk assessment and agree an action plan. Its investigation will involve evidence gathering in order to ensure that appropriate action is taken. It will take a reasonable and proportionate approach when using legal and non-legal interventions.
  2. In cases where there remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB, our role is not to establish whether the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its failings within its stage 1 complaint response. This was appropriate and showed that it had assessed its handling of the matter. This Service has not however seen all of the evidence which supports the landlord’s version of events in 2023 which is a record keeping issue.
  4. However we were still able to determine this case because the landlord has acknowledged its failings and considered how it could put matters right. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. The records the landlord has provided from January 2024 onwards do show a clear audit trail. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, to ensure that it is able to maintain a clear audit trail, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
  6. In January 2024 the resident said he had been chasing the installation of the noise measuring equipment for a long time. The landlord reviewed its action plan and shared this with the resident. It asked the resident to continue using the noise app while it was waiting for the noise measuring equipment to become available. It also provided dates of when it would next contact the resident to discuss progress of the case. This was appropriate and in accordance with its own policy.
  7. In February 2024 the resident continued to chase the installation of the noise measuring equipment. The landlord’s internal records show that the landlord was emailing between departments to chase up the availability of the equipment and it was keeping the resident updated. The equipment was then installed on 1 March 2024. The resident said in his communication with the landlord that he had been waiting for this for over a year. The records do not show how long the resident had been waiting.
  8. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint responses. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, further training and better oversight of the issues, and a compensation payment of £1000) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  1. The landlord acknowledged that there were significant delays installing the noise measuring equipment. It apologised and advised that it had shared the issues with senior members of staff so that its processes could be reviewed to ensure improvement. This was appropriate and showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns, investigated its own actions, and considered learning from its failings.
  2. The landlord set out its position in relation to what action it would take relative to neighbour A which was appropriate. It considered short term solutions and offered to install carpets. It also provided the option to move to a new property if the resident wanted. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact on his mental health and offered signposting. It also provided its insurance details should the resident wish to make a personal injury claim. This showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and sought to offer solutions.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the difficulties that the resident had experienced in raising his complaint initially and apologised. It explained that the case would now be overseen by its senior management team to ensure that the case would continue to be progressed. It also explained that it had fed back the complaint handling issues to the relevant teams so that further training could be provided. This also showed that it had considered its failings, sought to put matters right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord also considered the impact its failings had on the resident and offered compensation which was appropriate. In its stage 2 response it said it was satisfied that its stage 1 response was fair and accurate. It also provided a further update in respect of its findings from the noise measuring equipment and what that meant in terms of what it could do next. This was appropriate. It explained what action it had taken so far relative to neighbour A and reiterated the options available to the resident to try to resolve the issue.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses evidenced a thorough investigation into the issues raised. The landlord apologised for its mistakes and sought to put things right. It appropriately offered redress for the distress and inconvenience its failings had caused. It also explained what action it had taken to try to prevent further failings in the future.
  6. The landlord offered £1000 compensation for its failings in responding to the ASB reports and in its complaint handling. The compensation award was at the upper end of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for cases such as this where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  7. The landlord has therefore offered redress that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.

Recommendations

  1. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £1000 as offered in its stage 1response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, to ensure that it is able to maintain a clear audit trail in ASB cases, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.