Midland Heart Limited (202524956)

Decision
Case ID	202524956
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Midland Heart Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 March 2026

Background

The resident has lived at the property since November 2000. In April 2024 she reported to the landlord that her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) and the closure of her case.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB or the closure of her case.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the closure of her case

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its policy and conducted a proportionate investigation into her reports of ASB.
The landlord closed the ASB investigation in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
In recognition of the landlord’s previous offer to survey the property to explore soundproofing, we recommend that the landlord considers if this is still possible and contacts the resident to advise/discuss.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 May 2025	The resident raised a complaint. In summary she said she was unhappy that the landlord had closed its ASB investigation in relation to her noise reports against her neighbour. She said the issue had not been resolved.
10 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it: Confirmed it had opened an ASB investigation on 22 April 2024. Provided a comprehensive account of the contact and action it had taken since then. Confirmed its investigation had found that the actions taken were reasonable, and in line with its policies and procedures. Signposted the resident to its website for more information on ASB.
31 July 2025	The resident’s advocate, on her behalf, requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2. In summary she said: She disputed that there was a lack of evidence from the noise equipment and diary sheets provided. She found being offered earplugs insensitive. She was disappointed she hadn’t been able to discuss her concerns when the landlord had installed the noise monitoring equipment (NME). She had initially declined its offer of a surveyor attending but when she told the landlord she would accept this, it had not responded. She had received an email warning her to stop making complaints about anti-social behaviour, which had put her in an uncomfortable position. She was dissatisfied that her case had been closed without the issues being resolved. She had contacted the local authority, and they had referred her back to the landlord. The landlord had not considered the impact on her life.
2 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it: Said it had reviewed and confirmed the findings from its stage 1 investigation. Confirmed the resident’s diary sheets and noise recordings had been reviewed and had offered to meet the resident to discuss. Apologised if its offer of earplugs had caused offence. Said she had been made aware that the visit to instal the NME was only for that purpose and had been told that a further visit would be arranged to discuss the findings. Could not find any communication in which the resident said she was prepared for a surveyor to visit the property. Explained that while its email had been sent in line with its unreasonable and persistent contact policy, it did not prevent the resident from contacting it as normal. Explained it was specifically the environmental health team at the local authority who may be able to assist with the resident’s issues.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident came to us, she said she wanted the noise to stop.
9 March 2026	The resident (with her advocate present) told us the situation was ongoing and she would like to discuss this with the landlord in a face-to-face meeting, supported by an advocate.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident has told us that she has continued to raise noise related issues since this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have considered matters between 22 April 2024, when the landlord opened its ASB case and 2 September 2025, when the landlord issued its final response. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after this date, she can raise a further complaint with the landlord.
It is also important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the reported ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. It is to assess the landlord’s response to the reports and to the resident’s subsequent complaint with reference to its own policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.

What we did investigate

The resident told the landlord that her neighbours were making excessive noise. The landlord had an ASB policy in place. It said that noise nuisance would be triaged to determine if it would be dealt with under its ASB policy, or its neighbourhood management policy. The evidence does not indicate how long the landlord triaged the resident’s noise nuisance reports; however, it shows it opened an ASB case on 22 April 2024.

Between 22 April 2024 – 23 August 2024

The landlord completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident and provided a named officer who would address the issues. This was in line with its ASB policy.
The evidence provided shows that, while the resident was reporting noise issues and providing diary sheets and noise app recordings, the landlord had difficulty arranging a face-to-face meeting with her. The landlord attempted to contact the resident, by email and phone on several occasions. It also made a home visit; however, the resident would not engage and told the landlord she had called to cancel the appointment.
The landlord reviewed the diary sheets and noise app recordings on 29 April 2024 and recorded that it could not find any evidence to support the resident’s reports. The evidence shows that, on 30 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she would not engage in mediation with the neighbour.
The landlord offered to install NMEand the resident agreed to have this installed on 30 May 2024, however, she rescheduled this to 26 June 2024. The resident’s advocate was present on that day; therefore, the landlord missed the opportunity to discuss the reports with the resident. Given the difficulty the landlord had in discussing matters with the resident, this was a shortcoming.
Additionally, the landlord arranged a telephone appointment with the neighbour for 13 August 2024. It also referred the resident to its mobile security service who, on the resident’s request, would attend and professionally witness any reported nuisance.
The NME was collected on 17 July 2024, and the landlord assessed the recordings on 22 August 2024. This delay caused frustration to the resident, and she chased the landlord for the results on at least two occasions. It is unclear why it took so long for the results of the NME recordings to become available to the landlord; however, the evidence shows that it had also chased for these results on 30 July 2024 and 5 August 2024.
On 22 August 2024 the landlord reviewed the NME results and identified a few instances it considered to be ASB. As a result of this, and because the neighbour had missed the appointment on 13 August 2024, the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour the next day.

Between 24 August 2024 and 4 February 2025

During this time the resident continued to report issues of noise nuisance to the landlord. She also, on occasion, reported the issues to the police, who referred her back to the landlord. She told the landlord there had been periods of less disturbance when some of the residents had been away from the property.
The landlord arranged face-to-face meetings with the resident and her advocate on 19 September 2024, 8 October 2024, 7 November 2024 and 26 November 2024, which the resident cancelled due to ill health. The resident did, however, permit the installation of the NME on 7 November 2024 and this was collected on 28 November 2024.
On 10 December 2024 the landlord completed a case review. It reviewed all the available evidence, including over 70 NME recordings and it recorded that it could not find any evidence to support the resident’s reports of targeted noise nuisance. The landlord emailed the resident summarising what had been done so far and arranged a further meeting with the resident and her advocate for 23 January 2025. This was later cancelled by the resident.
In the same email, the landlord also offered to inspect the property to establish if any sound proofing work could be completed. This was a positive step and demonstrated that the landlord was focused on finding a resolution for the resident. This was declined by the resident.
The landlord arranged that the resident had the use of its mobile service over the holiday period. This was positive and showed that the landlord sought to support the resident. The evidence shows that the resident used this service on several occasions, however, this service reported there was no evidence of noise nuisance.

5 February 2025 – 14 May 2025

The resident sought the assistance from her local MP, who wrote to the landlord on 5 February 2025. The landlord responded on 20 February 2025 and explained the actions it had taken to resolve the situation.
On 7 February 2025 the landlord (this time the case officer’s team leader) arranged a telephone appointment with the resident for 14 February 2025. This was later cancelled by the resident. By email, the landlord told the resident that, since reviewing the NME recordings, it was possible that the NME used in November may not have been working and it offered to install this again.
It also offered to explore insulation/sound proofing options and to complete a sound test, whereby it would test the noise transference between the properties by having a case officer in each. These options were declined by the resident. However, the resident reconsidered and asked about soundproofing again in April 2024. The landlord advised that while it was exploring options with the neighbour to reduce noise, such as fitting carpets, it was too early to consider sound proofing options. This contradicted what the resident was previously told and was likely to have been confusing. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
The case was reallocated to a new case officer and the resident agreed to having the NME installed on 10 April 2025. She initially reported having issues with this, but when the landlord attended, she confirmed that she had been able to obtain recordings and did not want another installation.
The landlord arranged a meeting on 14 May 2025 with the resident and her advocate to discuss the findings, however, the resident cancelled this on the day. The landlord closed the ASB case on the same day. It concluded that the noise reported was not ASB and that it had exhausted all options available to assist the resident.

Overall

Effective ASB case management and use of a landlord’s ASB procedure is essential for landlords to help resolve conflicts, maintain positive relationships, and improve the resident’s experience. While not every reported annoyance is actionable, landlords have two key duties: to conduct a proportionate investigation into the nature and extent of the ASB, and to assess the evidence alongside both parties’ rights to enjoy their home before deciding on appropriate action.
The evidence shows that the resident consistently reported noise nuisance and concerns about the welfare of her neighbours throughout this period. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance appropriately. It supported the resident for her to obtain evidence of the issues she was reporting by providing diary sheets, a noise app, NME and the use of its mobile service. It also offered practical solutions to minimise the transference of noise between the properties. A recommendation has been made in relation to any welfare concerns the resident had.
This investigation has found that the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. Where evidence of ASB was available, it took appropriate action and closed the case in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident raised her initial complaint on 18 May 2025. The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged this complaint; however, the evidence shows it issued its stage 1 response on 10 June 2025, in line with the Code.
The resident requested her complaint was escalated on 31 July 2025. The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged this complaint; however, the evidence shows it issued its stage 2 response on 2 September 2025, in line with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were no issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping throughout this investigation.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the records and information it has, in line with its existing policies, and if appropriate make referrals to partner agencies, such as safeguarding in line with these policies.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident in this case was mostly positive. It was proactive and responsive. When it faced difficulties communicating with the resident it sought appropriate assistance from other agencies and offered help to find a new advocate when it identified the resident may need this.