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.

Norwich City Council (202433623)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433623

Norwich City Council

28 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 reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property, which is a 1 bedroom sheltered accommodation flat. He has lived there since February 2024. He told the landlord he has depression.
  2. The resident told the landlord in November 2024 that for 3 months he had been able to hear his neighbour preparing food in the early morning. He also said that the neighbour had sworn at him. The landlord asked the resident to complete evidence logs of any noise.
  3. The resident submitted the completed logs to the landlord in January 2025. The landlord said it did not have a record of these being received and so closed the ASB case due to lack of evidence. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s lack of action and asked for the neighbour to be evicted.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 17 February 2025. It acknowledged its error in closing the case and that the resident had completed the logs. It explained the action it would take in respect of the noise, but advised it was unable to evict the neighbour. The resident escalated his complaint that same day. He said the landlord had not taken any action against the neighbour.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 February 2025. It explained the action it had taken and the limitations of what it could do. The resident referred his case to us on 28 April 2025. He said the noise was affecting his sleep and he wanted the landlord to evict the neighbour.
  6. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. It subsequently gave the neighbour a formal warning about the noise. It also said it would investigate potential sound insulation issues in the building, which it went on to do.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on his health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the reports about the noise 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 were in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will respond to reports of ASB within 5 days. It will ask the resident to keep records of incidents or to use a ‘noise app’ to gather evidence before it passes the case to an ASB officer. The policy sets out that occasional noise and noise from household appliances would not be classed as ASB. It notes that residents who are vulnerable may be affected more by ASB.
  2. The resident told his housing officer on 19 November 2024, that for 3 months he had been able to hear his neighbour preparing food in the early morning. He said this caused his walls to shake and affected his daily life. He also said  the neighbour had sworn at him in about a doorstop that was missing. The housing officer completed a ASB report on behalf of the resident and sent this to the landlord’s ASB team the following day. This time taken for the landlord to act was in line with the timeframe stated in its policy. Despite not having evidence to support the resident’s reports, the landlord accepted the resident’s reports on face value and showed it had taken his concerns seriously.
  3. The resident reported further noise on 27 November 2024. The landlord asked him to use the noise app to record what he was hearing. The resident declined this and instead asked for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. The landlord explained that it needed to try gather evidence for 2 weeks before it could consider further action such as monitoring equipment. This response was in line with the stepped approach set out in its ASB policy. This says the landlord will only use such tools or escalate its interventions, when there is sufficient evidence to do so.
  4. As an alternative to the noise app, the landlord suggested the resident log incidents on evidence log sheets. It provided these and asked him to return them after 2 weeks. Based on the resident’s reluctance to use the noise app and the limited options left to the landlord to gather evidence, this was an appropriate way for the landlord to advance the case and support the resident in order for it to consider if it could take further action.
  5. Throughout December 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident and carried out a risk assessment. This step was in line with the actions set out in its policy on how to appropriately case manage reports of ASB.
  6. The resident made a complaint to us on 1 January 2025. He said as follows:
    1. His neighbour made noise 2 – 4 times a day and had sworn at him.
    2. He had depression. The situation was affecting his sleep and caused “extreme harm” to his health.
    3. He asked for the following:
      1. The neighbour to apologise to him in writing.
      2. The landlord to evict the neighbour.
      3. £5,000 compensation.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 3, 8 and 10 January 2025 to discuss matters, but he was not available. It spoke to him on 21 January 2025 and asked him to return the log sheets to allow it to progress the case. The resident said that he had already done so on 1 January 2025. The landlord asked him again on 6 February 2025 to return the logs. The resident reiterated that he had already returned them.
  8. The resident reported an incident on 11 February 2025 and said his neighbour had “fiercely kicked” his door and had sworn at him. He said he had reported the matter to the police and asked the landlord to evict the neighbour. The landlord responded the following day. It said that as the resident had not returned the logs and had not provided any evidence, it would close the ASB case. We have not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord liaised with the police following the resident’s report. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to fully investigate if there was any evidence to support this report.
  9. Despite this, the landlord did demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. Evidence of this is when it held a meeting on 13 February 2025 to discuss how it could support the resident. It noted that it had incorrectly closed the ASB case the day before, and that the resident had provided the evidence logs. The landlord rectified its error and re-open the ASB case. The decision to do so was appropriate in the circumstances, given it had been closed on the basis of an error by the landlord.
  10. After contact from us advising the landlord of the complaint, it responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 17 February 2025. It said as follows:
    1. It acknowledged that it had wrongly closed the ASB case and that the resident had provided evidence logs. It had re-opened the case and an ASB officer would contact the resident within 7 days. It would address the error with its staff member so mistakes could be avoided in the future.
    2. It explained that it could not make the neighbour write an apology but it would follow its process. It would write to the neighbour telling them of the investigation into the noise and ask them to stop.
    3. It was not legally able to remove the neighbour from the property. It explained that in order to do so, it would need evidence of prolonged ASB. It would also need to show that it had tried ways to resolve the behaviour.
    4. It acknowledged the impact of the situation, however, it could not agree to the £5,000 compensation requested.
  11. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 response shows it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in respect of the action it was limited to at the time regarding what action it could take against the neighbour. It appropriately acknowledged its mistake in closing the ASB case and its error in not being aware that the resident had submitted evidence logs. It apologised and set out learning it would take to ensure this did not happen again.
  12. However, although the ASB case was re-opened quickly and within 1 day after it was incorrectly closed, the resident had told the landlord on 2 occasions that he had sent the logs. The landlord’s repeated insistence that the resident had not done so caused him distress. Although the landlord apologised, it did not consider any redress for the distress caused. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and the affect he had said the situation was having on him. As such, compensation would have been appropriate way to try and put things right and the failure to do so was unreasonable.
  13. The resident escalated his complaint that same day. He disagreed with what the landlord had said and felt it had not taken any action against the neighbour. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 24 February 2025. It said as follows:
    1. It reiterated its acknowledgment that it had mistakenly asked the resident to send the logs despite having already received them. It apologised that this error had led to it closing the ASB case.
    2. Since its stage 1 response it had done as follows:
      1. Addressed the incorrect closure of the ASB case with the relevant staff member and re-opened the case.
      2. Agreed to send a warning letter to the neighbour.
    3. It explained that eviction was a legal process that required substantial evidence of ongoing ASB. It would not consider this at this stage.
    4. It apologised for any distress the noise had caused. It reiterated that it could not agree to the £5,000 compensation requested.
    5. It offered the support of a private mediation service.
  14. A review of the landlord’s stage 2 response shows that it was thorough and addressed the resident’s complaint. The resident had made clear the level of distress the issues with his neighbour had caused him. However, based on the evidence we have been provided with, the landlord appropriately sought to manage the reported noise using the tools available to it and in line with its ASB policy.
  15. The landlord’s confirmation that it would be sending a warning letter to the neighbour demonstrated an appropriate escalation in the action it could reasonably take in accordance with its policy. It’s offer of mediation was also in line with the actions available to it as per its policy.
  16. It is reasonable for landlords to adopt an approach that provides the realistic prospect of a successful enforcement application at court. In doing so, landlords have to show a court 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 were 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.
  17. However, despite the repeated acknowledgement of its error in closing the case, the landlord still did not consider any redress for the effect of this on the resident. This was a missed opportunity to try to put things right during the internal complaints procedure.
  18. We have seen that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord continued to follow its ASB process. It installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. Following some persistent sounds being recorded by this, it sent a formal warning to the neighbour. It also asked a surveyor to investigate potential sound insulation issues. This was subsequently carried out although we have not been provided with the outcome of this action.
  19. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports were reasonable and appropriate. It acknowledged its error is closing the case, however, it is reasonable to have expected it to have gone further to show that it had considered the effect of this on the resident by offering compensation. We have also seen that the resident reported an incident and said he had involved the police. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord liaised with the police in respect of this to determine if there was any supporting evidence to the resident’s claim. As such, these failures lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
  20. In deciding appropriate redress to resolve the complaint, we have taken into consideration the landlord’s swift correction to reopen the case after it was closed and the further proactive measures it has taken following the complaints procedure. To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident as a result of the failures, we have ordered £250 compensation. This is in within the range suggested by our remedies guidance where failures adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide evidence of compliance with these actions to us:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this report.
    2. Pay £250 compensation to the resident. This is to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. The amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.