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.

One Manchester Limited (202407974)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407974

One Manchester Limited

14 May 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 from an upstairs neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the 8th floor of a multi storey building, where the resident lives alone.
  2. Between 17 October 2021 and 22 September 2022 the resident made frequent reports of excessive noise coming from an upstairs neighbour. She described the noise as ‘loud music with heavy bass, causing vibration and shaking through the ceiling’. The evidence corresponds with the resident’s reports that the noise was happening through ‘most or all of the day’, often starting as early as 6AM or lasting as late as 3AM. The landlord sent the neighbour at least 2 ‘warning letters’ during this period.
  3. From October 2022 to May 2023 the resident continued to make reports. During this period the landlord took several actions, including but not limited to:

a.     sending further warning letters to the neighbour, such as on 25 January 2023

b.     visiting the neighbour alongside the police to discuss the complaints on 1 February 2023

c.      sending a ‘solicitors final warning letter’ to the neighbour on 1 March 2023

  1. The resident was out of the country from early March 2023 and returned on 9 May 2023. On 30 May 2023 she made further reports of excessive and persistent noise. The resident told the landlord that there was some improvement during June 2023.
  2. The resident began making renewed and frequent reports of noise again on 30 June 2023. The landlord opened a new antisocial behaviour (ASB) case on 8 August 2023.
  3. The resident continued to make frequent reports to the landlord. On 19 October 2023 the landlord and resident met. They discussed the action that had been taken to date and the landlord explained the process of taking legal action against the neighbour.
  4. The resident continued to make frequent reports of daily noise. She continued to submit frequent noise diary sheets and sound recordings to the landlord throughout the rest of 2023 and 2024.
  5. On 23 May 2024 the resident approached this Service. She was concerned that the landlord was not doing enough to resolve the situation. We advised the resident on making a complaint to the landlord.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on an unknown date in July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 July 2024.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2024. It:

a.     apologised for failings it had identified in handling the resident’s ASB case in March 2022

b.     offered £1,000 for these failings

c.      said that it was in the process of reviewing the resident’s case with the intention of taking legal action against the neighbour

d.     said that it would be in touch again by 16 August 2024

  1. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint by email on 20 August 2024. She said that:

a.     there had been inaccuracies in the landlord’s account of events, including further failings from 2022

b.     the noise was ongoing, other residents in the block were making complaints about the same neighbour, but nothing had been done

c.      although the landlord had said it would take legal action, it was taking too long

d.     the effect on her mental and physical health had been significant

e.     financial compensation did not solve the problem

  1. The resident continued making frequent reports to the landlord throughout the rest of August. The landlord confirmed via text message on each occasion that all reports were being assessed and added to the file being prepared for court.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 6 September 2024. It asked the resident to check and sign a witness statement prepared by its solicitors on 15 October 2024. She signed and returned this on 22 October 2024.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 October 2024. It:

a.     expanded on its failings from March 2022 and before, offering the resident a further £500 compensation, taking the total to £1,500 for these failings

b.     said that it had not identified any failings in its handling of the resident’s case after August 2023

c.      said that it would take legal action against the neighbour once it had received her signed witness statement, adding that this could take ‘up to 4 months’

d.     offered the resident a temporary move while the legal action was progressed

  1. On 15 November 2024 the resident asked this Service to investigate. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and the length of time the promised legal action was taking.

Events after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

  1. On 12 December 2024 the landlord apologised to the resident for delays in amending and finalising her witness statement. It said it was continuing to work on this on 23 December 2024.
  2. On 2 May 2025 the resident told this Service that her most recent update from the landlord was in April 2025, when it had promised to take legal action ‘soon’. She explained that she could not accept the landlord’s offer of temporary rehousing for personal and logistical reasons. She added that the noise problems were continuing and were unchanged in nature from the time of her early reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We have found it reasonable to consider events which took place from 30 June 2023 onwards. Events which took place before 30 June 2023 are referenced in this report for context only. This is because:

a.     the landlord took several actions between October 2022 and March 2023 which ended with a ‘final solicitors warning letter’ being sent to the neighbour. The resident then reported some improvement in May and June 2023 following the resident’s return from abroad. The resident began making renewed reports on 30 June 2023. It is reasonable that we assess the landlord’s actions in the time which followed, using the prior issuing of a ‘final’ warning letter as context of where the ASB case had progressed to

b.     the landlord referred to a clearly defined period after 8 August 2023 (when it formally opened a new ‘ASB Case’) in which it had not identified any failings and for which it has not offered any compensation. This case remains active and current. The resident’s desired outcome is for the ongoing noise issues to be resolved which relates predominantly to events within this period

The landlord’s relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy (the policy) sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. The policy defines ASB as ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance’, including ‘extreme and excessive noise that is persistent and unreasonable’. The policy aims to ‘ensure all residents enjoy the peace and quiet of their home free from serious disturbance’. It says it will ‘use effective intervention models, as well as legal tools to assist in managing ASB.
  2. To manage ASB the policy says that the landlord will ‘use a range of early intervention and preventative measures to directly challenge the ASB and identify rehabilitation and support pathways for those who are causing the ASB, and we will apply more formal tools where preventative approaches have not succeeded to stop the ASB, and where the harmful behaviour is continuing’.
  3. The policy says that ‘all ASB cases will be regularly assessed throughout the investigation, using a risk assessment matrix. Risk Assessments will be carried out with both reporter and the subject and reevaluated on a regular basis and following any serious incident.’
  4. The policy says that the landlord will keep in regular contact with the parties involved in the case, agree action plans, and provide feedback on a regular basis. Throughout the case, the landlord will continuously assess and review progress of the case, taking reasonable and proportionate steps at all times.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from an upstairs neighbour

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident appropriately by reviewing the evidence she provided. For example on 21 December 2023 when the landlord called the resident to discuss the noise diaries she had submitted, and promised to call again after the Christmas period to monitor the issue. Later, due to the frequency of the reports, the landlord often reviewed the reports in batches, such as on 26 June 2024, when it compiled the reports and asked the resident to ‘confirm she was happy with the content’, before the list was sent to the solicitors.
  2. The policy states that the landlord aims to respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. The evidence shows that this was not always possible, for example due to staff absence, though generally the landlord was responsive and often responded on the same day. There were no clear failings in the timeliness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in the period assessed.
  3. In late September 2023, the frequency and intensity of the noise reported by the resident increased. The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately by arranging to meet with the resident to discuss ‘next steps’. It did this on 19 October 2023.
  4. The notes from this meeting do not outline exactly what was discussed, but it is inferred that the landlord was strongly considering taking legal action against the neighbour at this time, as it explained the process of taking legal action to the resident. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy for situations when actions had been taken but ‘the harmful behaviour is continuing’, which was relevant to this case given that it had previously progressed to a final warning letter in March 2023.
  5. Throughout the period assessed the landlord conducted appropriate investigations. The evidence shows that it interviewed and surveyed neighbours. It adequately considered and kept records of the resident’s noise diary submissions and ‘Noise App’ recordings. It told the resident that it was using this evidence to produce a ‘witness statement’, necessary to proceeding with legal action as it had promised.
  6. The landlord and resident discussed installing Noise Monitoring Equipment (NME) at the property, which the resident agreed to on 18 December 2023. The resident and landlord continued to correspond about this in 2024, and there is evidence of some delays by the landlord in installing NME in February 2024. The resident later changed her mind about the installation for unrelated reasons in May 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord’s handling of the installation of NME at the property had any bearing on the outcome of this case.
  7. However, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment at any time during the period assessed, in line with its policy. The policy outlines that several elements of its case handling, including the timescales in which it takes relevant actions and the priority given to the case, are determined by the risk assessments it carries out. This was a significant failing.
  8. A key element of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had first discussed taking legal action against the neighbour on 19 October 2023 but that this had not happened at the time of the stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows that after raising the resident’s expectations of potential legal action in October 2023, it did not take the necessary step under its policy of informing the neighbour of this possibility until 29 July 2024.
  9. It is unclear why there was a significant delay in taking this step to progress legal action. However because it did not complete a risk assessment to guide the timeliness of its response in line with its policy, we can only conclude that this delay was unreasonable.
  10. The landlord’s policy requires it to carry out a number of investigations into the circumstances and welfare of the alleged perpetrator, prior to commencing legal action. The evidence shows the landlord noted this as an outstanding action on 25 July 2024. This remained outstanding on 12 September 2024, according to internal emails. There is no evidence that the landlord organised to carry out these investigations or take similar actions in line with its policy until a separate incident on 26 September 2024. The reason for this delay was unclear. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment on behalf of the neighbour which may have contributed to this delay, which represents a failing.
  11. The outcome of the landlord’s investigations into the neighbour is unclear, however in its stage 2 complaint response on 29 October 2024, it promised the resident that legal action would be completed ‘within 4 months’. It is evident therefore that the landlord was satisfied that it was in a position to proceed.
  12. The most recent email seen by this Service on 6 February 2025 shows that the landlord continued to communicate with the resident and try to find solutions, such as offering a temporary move. However there was no update on whether the landlord still intended to take legal action or about the progress of any action.
  13. On 2 May 2025 the resident told this Service that the landlord had written to her in April 2025, stating that it still intended to take legal action and was in the process of preparing the relevant documentation. While it was positive that the landlord provided an update, this significantly exceeded the 4 month timescale in which the landlord said it would take legal action in its stage 2 response.
  14. There is no evidence to suggest what kind of legal action the landlord was taking. In the evidence provided, there is 1 internal reference to a civil injunction, and another to the landlord’s possible intent to seek possession of the property. Although the landlord gave the resident an overview of the process for taking legal action, it is unclear if it told her what this would look like in practice.
  15. It is possible that there is good reason that the landlord has been unable to commence legal action, however there is no evidence that the landlord has communicated this reason to the resident, who continues to report ASB. The resident had already been waiting for over 12 months for legal action to progress when the landlord provided a 4 month timescale. The resident’s expectations were not appropriately managed.
  16. It is positive that the landlord offered the resident a temporary move to mitigate the adverse effect she was experiencing as a result of the ASB. However, the resident was not obliged to accept this option. She told this Service that there were personal and logistical reasons which made accepting a move undesirable. While this has been considered as a mitigating factor, the landlord’s failure to deliver on its promise of legal action or to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations remains significant.
  17. The evidence shows that similar updates had been provided to the resident throughout 2024 which did not explain in good detail why the delays remained ongoing, which had continued to cause distress and disappointment to the resident. This contributed to a significant failing in the landlord’s management of the resident’s expectations.
  18. In conclusion, the landlord took several appropriate actions and investigations, and communicated with the resident regularly, in line with its policy. However the landlord failed to complete any risk assessments and determine its timescales based on the risk assessed. The evidence shows that the landlord’s failure to adequately manage the resident’s expectations led to significant distress, inconvenience, frustration and disappointment. As a result there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from an upstairs neighbour.
  19. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there has been maladministration resulting in adverse effect as described above, compensation of between £100 and £1,000 should be considered. In view of the length of time the failings adversely affected the resident for, the landlord is ordered to pay £600 compensation below. This is in addition to the £1,500 offered by the landlord. This offer has not been assessed, as explained in the scoping section of this report.
  20. The resident reports remaining uncertain about the landlord’s progress on its promise of legal action. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident providing an update on what action it intends to take, when it intends to complete those actions, and explain why there have been delays in completing actions it has already promised.
  21. The landlord did not identify any failings in its stage 2 complaint response. This was of concern, primarily due to the absence of risk assessments, as set out in its policy. The landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It should consider what steps may be appropriate to take to ensure the failings do not reoccur, for example identifying any staff training needs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from an upstairs neighbour.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:

a.     Paid the resident £600 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings highlighted in this report.

b.     Written to the resident setting out what action it intends to take, when it intends to complete those actions, and explain why there have been delays in completing actions it has already promised, with regard to the resident’s ASB case.

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:

a.     Conducted a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case.

b.     Considered what steps may be appropriate to take to ensure the failings do not reoccur.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,500 already offered, if it has not done so already.