Sage Rented Limited (202401002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401002

Sage Rented Limited (SRL)

24 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. the resident’s request for a property transfer.
3. the complaint.

Background

The resident and her partner are joint tenants of the landlord of a flat. The complaint and reports of ASB were made by both the resident and her partner. The resident has an auto-immune disorder which she said is triggered by stress and anxiety. The resident and her partner both suffer with depression and anxiety.
The resident initially reported noise from the flat above during 2023. The noise related to the neighbour’s dog barking and banging for long periods of time. In January 2024, the resident began reporting frequent arguing and shouting, as well as banging and thudding at unsociable hours.
The resident raised a complaint on 24 February 2024 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The resident said:
1. the landlord failed to do the things it said it would, it had not taken her and her partner’s physical and mental health into consideration and were failing to take the seriousness and frequency of the ASB into consideration when taking action.
2. the ASB had been ongoing since September 2023, when the neighbour’s partner moved into the property.
3. the issues included arguing, shouting, banging and that the dog was barking and banging against its crate for long periods.
4. the officer dealing with the ASB left the organisation while she was waiting for a response about her case, and the landlord failed to notify her of this.
5. the landlord failed to consider a managed move, despite the resident being harassed and a victim of deliberate ASB by the neighbour.
6. the landlord confirmed the injunction process would start against her neighbour however, the landlord then informed her that the proper due diligence had not been done.
7. her and her partner were unable to sleep due to the noise which was affecting their ability to work and they had been sleeping on the sofa at relative’s houses.
8. the landlord’s handling of the ASB was making her and her partner mentally and physically unwell.
9. in order to resolve the complaint, the landlord should move them to a vacant property.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 July 2024, in which it said:
1. legal action should only have been considered if all other non-legal tools had been exhausted and a proper investigation of the situation had been completed first.
2. the staff member who dealt with the resident’s case did not complete an initial investigation and suggested that an injunction be lodged without proper consideration.
3. it did not follow its policy and over-promised a resolution, which was a customer service failure. It apologised for the miscommunication and lack of due diligence and acknowledged there had been delays due to this error, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
4. since March 2023, it had visited the property multiple times, conducted sound tests, enforced an acceptable behaviour agreement and continued to investigate the issue.
5. although the issue was unresolved, there had been no customer service failure after the case was handed over to the Community Safety Team.
6. the ASB investigation was ongoing and it would install a sound box to test the decibel level of noise heard in the resident’s flat from the neighbour’s property by the end of the month.
7. It offered £200 compensation, made up as:
  1. £100 for the failure to follow the ASB policy and communication delays.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 July 2024. She said:
1. the landlord conducted a listening activity and the resident was required to chase it for the findings. The actions taken following the activity were biased and took the neighbour’s word against the resident’s evidence.
2. the landlord said the good neighbour agreement signed in April 2024 would be active for 12 months and reviewed regularly. However, the landlord had not reviewed the agreement and the resident had provided evidence that the neighbour was not sticking to the agreement.
3. there were delays in the landlord responding to her emails and evidence uploads about the noise.
4. the landlord had not acknowledged her complaint that the ASB case officer had shown bias towards her neighbour.
5. her request for a managed move was due to the actions and bullying from the neighbour, and not because her and her partner wish to foster children.
6. the inadequate customer service and multiple delays in the case warrants the landlord to make enquiries with the local authority about moving the resident.
7. the amount of compensation offered was unacceptable due to costs incurred by driving to stay with relatives and due to paying rent despite not staying in the property because of the ASB.
8. the ASB had caused emotional distress, anxiety, problems at work, health issues due to lack of sleep and time incurred in recording and uploading evidence, chasing the landlord for a response and attending meetings and mediation.
9. the landlord should review the acceptable behaviour agreement and the evidence provided and take further action.
10. the landlord should consider making the neighbour put her partner on the tenancy agreement as he lived with her most of the time, and was causing a lot of the noise.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 August 2024, in which it said:
1. it had taken the following appropriate steps to address the allegations raised:
  1. conducted multiple visits both announced and unannounced to the neighbour’s property.
  2. encouraged the resident to report incidents through the ASB app.
  3. facilitated an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement which it had reviewed and found that neither party had breached the terms of the agreement.
  4. arranged an independent sound test to be conducted on 9 May 2023, which indicated that the noise levels would not be considered statutory noise nuisance.
  5. arranged mediation between the resident and the neighbour on 4 July 2024.
  6. installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home from 22 to 29 July 2024 and arranged for a third party industry professional to review the data. The analysis concluded that 99% of the recorded noise levels during this time fell within the range of everyday living noise and did not meet the threshold for statutory noise nuisance.
2. it concluded that the noise was consistent with normal living conditions in multi-occupancy buildings, and there was no evidence to suggest that it was ASB or that the noise was being made intentionally.
3. it had closed the ASB case and if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could request an antisocial behaviour case review.
4. its complaint handling was unacceptable as it did not initiate the complaint following the resident’s initial request and it repeatedly extended the stage 2 deadline without providing a justifiable reason.
5. it offered an additional £150 compensation for the handling of the complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 August 2024. She said:
1. the landlord had not acknowledged 90% of her complaint, including unprofessionalism, bullying by staff members, opinions being used over evidence, miscommunication and accusations.
2. the landlord closed the case based on 1 week of recordings from the machine it installed, during which time the neighbours were not home and the device would therefore not have captured the issue. She was assured the case would not be based on this data and that the machine could be installed up to 3 times.
3. the landlord allowed the neighbour to breach agreements and dismissed the resident’s reports as one-off incidents or expected noise in order to close the case. It used the neighbour’s mental health to dismiss the noise complaints.
4. in order to resolve the complaint, she said:
  1. the landlord should move the resident and her partner to another property,
  2. if it will not move them, it should reopen the ASB case and a different member off staff should undertake a thorough investigation.
  3. Pay compensation for the failures, emotional distress caused and the money they have lost due unpaid time off work and not staying at home because of the noise.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect the ASB has had on her and her partner’s mental and physical health. We recognise that the noise disturbance has caused, and continues to cause, significant distress. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the residents’ health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the residents experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord opened a new ASB case and accepted a management move application from the resident. The resident informed us of her dissatisfaction regarding how the landlord has handled the managed move application and the ongoing ASB. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
Further, while the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move properties, we would not order a landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. We can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request, including if appropriate support had been provided.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that when it receives a report, it will work quickly to determine whether it meets the definition of ASB. It states that the landlord assesses risk and vulnerability by using a vulnerability risk assessment (VRA), which is completed following an interview with the reporter. Depending on the outcome of the assessment, actions will be identified and taken to assist in reducing the risk level. The policy states that the VRA will be kept under review during the life of a case and changes in scoring responded to as appropriate.
The policy states it will keep in in contact with those reporting ASB, being clear, transparent and fair in its communication and support residents by taking action such as making referrals to internal or external support or safeguarding.
The policy says the landlord will attempt to resolve matters through practical solutions, warnings, and voluntary agreements before resorting to more formal approaches. It relies on evidence to be able to take action, which may include completed diary sheets, information recorded by the ASB app, CCTV, or video doorbell recordings, reports to agencies or signing a witness statement.
The policy states the landlord may take the following informal actions:
1. practical solutions, such as environmental improvements
2. warning letters
3. meetings
4. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC)
5. Good Neighbourhood Agreements (GNA)
The landlord’s Management Transfer Policy states a management transfer will be considered where an urgent move is required as a resident is unsafe in their current home due to reasons such as domestic abuse or severe harassment. The policy states that the landlord will assess each case to determine if a management transfer priority will be granted for a customer to move to an alternate home.
The landlord’s Lettings and Allocations Policy states that it will provide information about options to move including mutual exchange, applying to a local authority for a transfer and shared ownership and other affordable ownership products. It states that if tenants need to move urgently, the landlord will assess the circumstances, and work with the local authority for a home to move to, where appropriate and available. The policy states that the landlord will review each case and support an urgent move for the same reasons outlined in the management transfer policy. It states that the landlord may not be able to help tenants move to another property, and much will depend on what the local authority has available at the time. Tenants may need to join the waiting list at the relevant local authority for a transfer.
Information about housing options on the landlord’s website states that local authorities have nomination rights for properties owned by the landlord. This means that the local authority is responsible for nominating applications to the landlord for housing, and the landlord is not able to offer customers housing outside of this process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

When the resident began reporting the noise nuisance in 2023, the property was managed by a managing agent on behalf of the landlord. The landlord resumed direct management of its properties in January 2024. The resident’s initial reports were related to noise caused by the neighbour’s dog. The landlord has sent limited evidence of action taken prior to January 2024 in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is therefore difficult for the Ombudsman to assess its handling of the issue during this time. The landlord should ensure it maintains and provides all relevant evidence, and requests this from third parties, if necessary.
From approximately January 2024, the resident reported that the noise had escalated. She said she could hear banging, shouting and arguing for significant periods of time during the night. The resident said she felt the noise was deliberate.
The landlord informed the resident that it would begin the injunction process if the neighbour did not remove her dog from the property, as per warnings it had issued to her. However, on 15 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that the staff member dealing with the case had not followed due diligence before pursuing a legal route and that the injunction process had therefore not started. The landlord said it had asked the neighbour not to allow her partner’s dog into the property.
By failing to properly follow its ASB policy, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations as to what actions it would take to address the issue. This also resulted in a delay in the landlord pursuing informal actions to try to resolve the ASB, which should have been explored in the first instance. The landlord acted appropriately by offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to this failing.
The landlord has not provided evidence to indicate that it created a new ASB action plan after this error was identified. In November 2024, the Ombudsman published a report on Learning from Severe Maladministration. While this was after the resident’s initial reports of ASB, it reflects the landlord’s obligations and best practice. The report states that action plans are one of the foundations of ASB handling and not implementing an action plan can lead to the case being poorly managed for longer. Landlords should use action plans to show the range of solutions it has available and clearly set out what it can and cannot do. The landlord ought to have clearly set out the steps it would take to address the ASB reports, with timeframes. This was a failing by the landlord.
The evidence indicates that the resident continued to report that both dogs were in the property and said that the neighbour had breached the agreement. The landlord visited the neighbour on 21 March 2023 however, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as to the outcome of this visit, which it ought to have done. On 8 April 2024, the landlord confirmed that the neighbour had signed an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement which would be in place for 12 months. The conditions included that the neighbour should not allow her partner’s dog to visit the property, that she would train her dog to manage separation anxiety and that she would be mindful of how sound travelled at night.
The Acceptable Behaviour Agreement was an appropriate action that was in line with its ASB policy. However, the resident continued to report that the neighbour’s dog was banging against its crate, her partner’s dog was in the property and that both dogs made noise for extended periods of time. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not respond to several of the resident’s further reports about the dogs. Given this formed part of the Acceptable Behaviour Agreement, the landlord ought to have explained how it would monitor compliance with the agreement.
The resident raised that she felt the landlord was biased towards her neighbour due to her protected characteristics. This was particularly related to the neighbour being permitted to have her dog in the property. While we acknowledge that the resident feels her neighbour has been treated more favourably, we are unable to assess the landlord’s communication with the neighbour or consider its treatment of her in terms of her protected characteristics.
In its 8 April 2024 email, the landlord also said that the neighbour’s front door was sticking and needed to be pulled hard to close. It said it would raise a repair. The evidence indicates that the repairs were completed in February 2025, despite the resident chasing the issue. This was a significant delay and the landlord failed to take a proactive approach to the repair that was causing noise nuisance.
The landlord undertook a ‘listening exercise’ on 7 May 2024 to establish noise transference between the flats. The landlord has not provided any notes to reflect its findings from this visit. The resident chased the landlord on 15 May 2024 regarding the outcome and the landlord said that when excessive noise was made in the neighbour’s flat, it could be heard in the resident’s property. it said that noise from the TV and walking and talking at a normal level could not be heard. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns raised at the time about the need for this action, this was reasonable to assess whether any steps could be taken to reduce noise transference. However, it is noted that the landlord only identified 1 minor action to be taken by the neighbour.
There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord considered arranging an independent survey or specialist investigation of the building. The landlord’s position was that the noise was not being carried out deliberately and therefore did not constitute ASB. It therefore would have been reasonable for it to undertake further structural investigations, including inspecting the insulation between the 2 properties to assess whether there were any further measures it could take to provide noise insulation. It is noted that after the stage 2 response, on 22 November 2024, the landlord said it would request an independent surveyor to attend the properties to assess if there was adequate sound proofing in the block. This action ought to have been taken sooner. The landlord has not provided evidence to reflect the results of this survey.
On 10 June 2024, the landlord informed the resident that a colleague, who had no insight into the case, had reviewed one of the resident’s recordings and did not deem the noise to be ASB. It was a reasonable step for the recordings to be reviewed by a someone with no knowledge of the case however, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous records of this action, which it should have done. In the email, the landlord stated that there was a difference in lifestyle between the resident and the neighbour, but this did not mean it was ASB. It said the structure of the building played a part in how noise is transferred which it said was evident in the listening exercise.
The landlord arranged mediation between the resident and the neighbour which took place on 4 July 2024, which was a reasonable action. However, it is an action that the Ombudsman would expect to be offered early in the process. The mediation agreement stated that both parties would be considerate of noise between 10pm-7am. The resident continued to report ASB following the mediation.
The landlord installed a recording device in the resident’s property from 22 to 29 July 2024. This was an appropriate step to gather independent evidence of the noise. However, it would have been prudent for the landlord to have also considered taking this action sooner given the resident had been reporting ASB for several months. The evidence collected was reviewed by an independent third party on 9 August 2023 who concluded that the recorded noise levels were not unreasonable.
On 19 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her it was closing the ASB case. It said it was unable to use the recordings submitted by the resident as the app does not record decibel levels, but provides an example of the noise that can be heard and how often. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the neighbours were not home during the week the recording device was installed, and the landlord had informed her that the device could be installed up to 3 times but this had not happened. She said that the landlord had closed the case based on the results of the recording device.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not refer to the number of times it may install recording equipment. However, given the resident continued to report ASB, it would have been good practice for the landlord to set out how it would deal with her concerns outside of its ASB policy. It is noted that, following the stage 2 response, the landlord opened another ASB case in September 2024 and compiled an ASB action plan. We are unable to consider the specific concerns raised by the resident regarding the landlord’s handling of the ASB after the stage 2 response. However, this could indicate that the landlord unreasonably closed the first ASB case.
The resident submitted extensive recordings of the noise however, the landlord’s analysis of these is not always clear. Landlords should maintain comprehensive record-keeping of reported incidents and records of follow-up actions taken. Further, they should provide clear information on what evidence is required and how evidence provided by the resident will be managed.
There is no evidence that the landlord made regular contemporaneous notes of the ASB case. It is therefore difficult to assess whether the landlord reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the resident in a timely manner. A regularly updated action plan could have set out when the landlord would give updates and responses regarding evidence submitted, and would have improved the level of communication with the resident.
The Ombudsman’s report on Learning from Severe Maladministration also states that when a resident reports ASB, one of the earliest actions a landlord should take is a risk assessment. The landlord has provided no evidence that it undertook a risk assessment in response to the resident’s report.
The landlord’s notes indicate that it had tried to contact her to carry out a risk assessment on 13 June 2024. However, there is no further reference to a risk assessment in the evidence provided. The resident reported that the ASB and noise nuisance had a significant effect on her and her partner’s health. It is therefore particularly concerning that the landlord did not undertake this action, in line with its ASB policy. This was a failing by the landlord.
Overall, the landlord has undertaken various actions that were reasonable to investigate the resident’s ASB reports, and that were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations. However, there were some failings in its handling of the case that have been highlighted in this report. This includes the lack of action plans and risk assessments, the delays in completing the door repairs and a lack of clarity regarding how it would ensure compliance with the Acceptable Behaviour Agreement. The landlord also did not maintain comprehensive records on the ASB case. These failings amount to maladministration.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It is evident that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
The landlord made some efforts to put things right by offering £200 in its stage 1 response for the failings associated with the initial handling of the ASB case. However, in order to remedy the failings identified in this report, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation. The amount ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have made a further order for the landlord to review its handling of the ASB and identify and implement required learning.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, we have considered what the landlord was committed to do under its management transfer policy and whether it behaved in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The resident initially asked the landlord to move her to a vacant property in February 2024. The landlord stated that the circumstances did not meet the criteria for a managed move outlined in its policy. It advised the resident to register with the local authority and bid on properties or consider a mutual exchange. The landlord provided the same advice in further emails to the resident during the period covered by this investigation.
The resident raised that she did meet the criteria for a management transfer due to being subject to severe harassment. However, the landlord had determined that the resident’s reports did not constitute ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the resident was being harassed.
We acknowledge the distress experienced by the resident and her partner and their desire to be rehoused due to her reports of noise nuisance and ASB. We also note that there have been several further developments regarding the resident’s request for a management move since the stage 2 response, which we are unable to consider. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord followed its policies and provided the resident with the correct advice about how she could pursue a property move. As such, no failing has been identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The policy states it will acknowledge escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 20 February 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 June 2023. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 3 July 2023. This was 87 days in excess of the timeframe stipulated for acknowledging and responding at stage 1, and was therefore a failing by the landlord.
The resident escalated the complaint on 6 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 12 July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 August 2024, which was 10 days in excess of the required timeframe.
At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failings. The amount offered was reasonable to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delays in dealing with the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable to remedy the complaint handling failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. pay the resident a total of £450, made up as:
  1. £200 already offered by the landlord for its handling of the ASB, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £250 for its handling of the ASB.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must carry out a review of the failures identified in this report to establish what went wrong and what it will do differently. The findings of this report should also inform the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframes stipulated.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. as a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling based on its offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £150 compensation offered to the resident if it has not already done so.
2. The landlord should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records regarding ASB cases, particularly in relation to evidence submitted by residents and actions taken to address the ASB.