Platform Housing Group Limited (202452984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452984

Platform Housing Group Limited

9 September 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 residents reports of noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 15 December 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has told the landlord that she has mental health issues and the landlord’s records reflect this.
3. On 1 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that a neighbour, who had moved in approximately 10 days previously, had been playing loud music. The landlord logged an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case and agreed an action plan with the resident. It also contacted the local environmental health team.
4. During November 2024 the landlord visited the neighbour and issued a warning and action plan to improve their behaviour. It also contacted the police.
5. On 7 January 2025 the landlord met with the resident. The resident wrote a letter of complaint on 8 January 2025 which the landlord logged that it received on 16 January 2025. She said that she was unhappy with the outcome of the meeting. She said that she did not think that the landlord’s proposals to use an acceptable behaviour contract and injunction, pending further evidence, would resolve the noise nuisance.
6. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 6 February 2025. It said that it had reviewed its handling of the ASB case so far and found that it had followed procedure apart from not sharing a new action plan with her after the meeting on 7 January 2025 and not returning a call within 3 days. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation comprising £50 for the distress and inconvenience and £50 for the time and trouble this had caused.
7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 12 February 2025. She said she was in fear of her safety and staying with a relative. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 19 March 2025. It said that:
   1. It had contacted other neighbours in the block but received no further evidence of noise nuisance.
   2. It had sent her 2 action plans in February 2025, 1 of which caused confusion so it apologised for this.
   3. It understood that she could not use the noise recording app due to her phone type and that she was concerned that her neighbour would know if she had a noise monitoring recorder installed by the environmental health team. However, it would like to reassure her that it would not tell the neighbour that it was installing the equipment and would support her in taking this action to help provide proof of the noise nuisance.
   4. It was managing the ongoing ASB case in line with its procedure. It encouraged her to continue to work with it by keeping diaries and providing updates.
   5. She had not accepted its previous offer of compensation. However, it had reviewed this and considering the further service failures identified it now offered £200 comprising:
      1. £100 as offered at stage 1.
      2. £50 to recognise that it had sent 2 action plans in February which caused confusion.
      3. £50 for her time and trouble.
8. The landlord referred the case to the local authority for an ASB case review (community trigger). This took place on 16 May 2025. The report the local authority provided following the case review said that the landlord and its partner agencies had acted appropriately, proportionately, and in a timely manner when responding to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
9. The environmental health team installed noise monitoring equipment on 2 July 2025. It normally installs this for 7 days. However, after 7 days the officer returned and gave the impression that they were removing the equipment. It was then left for a further 8 days. They told the landlord that no recordings of excess noise were made over the 15-day period.
10. The resident informed us in September 2025 that the noise nuisance continues and that the landlord has closed the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident also complained about her request for a managed move. However, as this is also part of another complaint being investigated separately by this Service, we have not investigated this element as part of this case.
12. The resident described the effect the alleged noise nuisance has had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. However, we have considered whether she experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.

ASB

13. It is not our role to decide whether the nuisance the resident reported amounted to ASB. It is also not our role to decide whether any ASB took place. Our role in such cases is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its policies and procedures, in response to the reports made.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will:
    1. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment as part of its initial contact with a complainant and then complete further risk assessments throughout the case as appropriate.
    2. Complete an initial action plan with the complainant and complete further action plans throughout the case.
    3. Complete an action plan with the respondent, ensuring they are aware of the allegations, capturing their response, and providing them with actions required.
    4. Consider referral and sign posting to support agencies where appropriate for both the complainant and respondent.
    5. Take reasonable and proportionate intervention in response to ASB, which could include non-legal remedies such as visits, mediation, warning letters or acceptable behaviour contracts or legal remedies such as injunction or possession proceedings.
    6. Consider interventions in collaboration with partner agencies.
15. There is evidence that the landlord completed an action plan when the resident first contacted it about the ASB. It also completed a risk assessment which identified that the risk was low, it repeated the risk assessments at appropriate intervals. There is also evidence that the landlord regularly reviewed the case and provided further action plans to the resident.
16. The landlord visited the neighbour promptly and completed an action plan with them which it regularly reviewed. It issued warnings to the neighbour at appropriate times and considered taking further action when appropriate.
17. The landlord acted appropriately by proactively liaising with the environmental health team at an early stage and asking to work in conjunction with them. There is evidence that the resident asked the environmental health team not to install noise monitoring equipment in the property because she did not want the neighbour to know about it. However, she agreed to this later but despite the officer who installed it giving the impression that it had been removed after 7 days, no excess noise was recorded.
18. The landlord also acted appropriately by contacting the police at an early stage. The police emailed the landlord on 8 March 2025 to advise it that, following a call from the resident the previous evening, they had attended the property. This was not usually something they would do. However, the officers said that they witnessed noise from the pub and not the neighbour as reported. The landlord continued to liaise with the police throughout the case and completed a joint visit with the neighbour.
19. There is evidence that the landlord visited other neighbours in the block living adjacent to the alleged noise nuisance in January 2025. This was an appropriate action to take. The neighbours advised that although there was some noise and music when the respondent first moved in things had quietened down. The landlord contacted these neighbours and others again for updates when appropriate throughout the course of the case.
20. The landlord kept the resident informed throughout the process by telephone, and in writing. It adjusted its communication methods when the resident asked it to.
21. There is evidence that the landlord regularly asked the resident if she would like it to refer her for support and noted that she said that she received adequate support already. The landlord also asked the neighbour if they needed any support referrals.
22. There is evidence that the landlord offered mediation to both the resident and the neighbour. The neighbour agreed to attend mediation, however the resident said she did not feel able to attend.
23. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the case for an ASB case review. This found that the landlord and partner agencies had acted proportionately and promptly.
24. In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It completed risk assessments and action plans and communicated regularly with the resident. It worked with other agencies from an early stage to try to obtain evidence and then acted proportionately given that this was not forthcoming. It also spoke to other residents within the block. It identified some service failures and offered appropriate compensation for these at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process. We consider the compensation offered to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this sum of compensation to the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Recommendations

26. The landlord should pay the resident the £200 compensation it offered at stage 2 of the complaints process if it has not already done so.
27. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss recent events and the possibility that another neighbour is now willing to provide evidence. It should then decide whether to re-open the ASB case.