Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202329648)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329648

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat with a shared communal garden. The resident suffers from mental health issues. Based on the landlord’s records, it is unclear if it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities before it received reports of ASB.
Between 22 August 2023 and 9 November 2023, the resident reported issues of ASB from his next-door neighbour including fly tipping and his neighbour’s dog barking. The landlord began its investigations on 22 August 2023. On 13 November 2023, the resident attempted to take his own life by overdose because of the distress caused by the dog barking.
On 23 November 2023, the resident raised a complaint. He was unhappy with the support he received from the landlord with ongoing issues of ASB from his neighbour. He said that:
1. his neighbour’s dog was left unattended and barking at all hours.
2. he had sent evidence demonstrating the issue but the landlord had not done anything substantial to resolve the issue.
3. the RSPCA were unable to help.
4. his neighbour’s family had threatened him and he called the police.
5. he took an overdose and attempted to cut his own ear off because of the stress of the situation.
6. his mental health was declining.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord:
1. Said that it had discussed the issue with his neighbour who agreed that the situation was not acceptable, however, he had been in hospital due to an unpredicted hospital stay.
2. Had requested for the dog to be removed temporarily by his family but this was not possible.
3. Advised that the RSPCA would not remove the dog because it was being cared for properly and the landlord could not remove the dog.
4. Advised that the police would not get involved because there was no crime being committed.
5. Acknowledged and apologised for the distressing situation for the resident.
6. Offered mediation with the resident’s neighbour to agree a solution going forward.
On 14 December 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He felt that the landlord’s complaint response painted him as a ‘bad guy’ as he complained about ASB when his neighbour was in hospital. He was also unhappy that the police reference that he provided was in relation to a threat he received from his neighbours relative. He wanted the landlord to investigate every ASB issue he had raised about the neighbour as he felt that the landlord had only focussed on the most recent issue. He reported that there was still rubbish in the communal area and dog fouling close to his doorstep. He said that he had emailed the landlord prior to his overdose and feels let down.
On 12 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord provided a history of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. While it found no fault with its ASB response, it apologised that it had not had a conversation with the resident before issuing its stage 1 complaint response. As a resolution, it advised that it was continuing to gather ASB evidence. It would install noise monitoring equipment, was liaising with the police, it would carry out a door knock exercise to establish if there is further evidence of ASB from neighbour. The landlord acknowledged the distressing situation and referred the resident to victim support.
On 19 January 2024, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB. He said that the landlord did not investigate the previous reports of ASB and only looked into his issue after he raised a complaint. As a resolution, the resident wanted compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB.
ASB can take many forms and will often involve cases where the reported behaviour is sporadic; in such cases, a landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a reasonable and proportionate way. The resident may feel that their reports have not been taken seriously or that the landlord has taken too long to progress the case. However, it is important to note that the landlord is not responsible for any alleged unacceptable behaviour; instead, its role is to ensure that it responds to any reports it receives in accordance with its policies and procedures and legal obligations. This will involve progressing through its ASB procedure, gathering, and reviewing evidence and then taking actions proportionate to its understanding of such evidence.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that when responding to reports of ASB it “will apply an approach of what is ‘reasonable,’ as tolerance levels are subjective; and what causes a nuisance to one person, may not cause nuisance to another. In these cases, the Council and their partners may be required to determine what is reasonable.” It sets out that it does not consider occasional or one-off incidences of noise as ASB.
The ASB policy says that it may complete a Victim Vulnerability Risk Assessment and Investigation Plan at the initial interview. The risk assessment outcomes are categorised as: High; Medium or Low. These assessments help inform the landlord about the potential impact of the reports it receives and it may signpost or refer victims for additional support based on these assessments.
The landlord’s records show that prior to the complaint the first report of ASB from the resident was on 22 August 2023 when the resident reported rubbish in the communal garden and the neighbour’s smoke was going through his vent into his home. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out visits but found no evidence of fly tipping and agreed with the resident that it would move a bench so that the smoke would not go through his vent. These were appropriate practical solutions by the landlord.
On 5 October 2023, the resident sent a recording of his neighbour’s dog barking. The landlord attended the next day to discuss the issue but the neighbour was not home. The landlord followed up twice more and discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour on 13 October 2023. His neighbour said that he had been on holiday but in future he would rehome the dog while he was away. The landlord provided this feedback to the resident. This was a reasonable and proportionate action for the landlord to take.
The evidence shows that the landlord received further email correspondence from the resident on 24 October 2023 and 9 November 2023. The Ombudsman has not received a copy of these emails; however, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was reporting further incidents of the neighbour’s dog barking.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour and asked the resident to provide noise recordings via the noise app and arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. The resident was advised to contact the landlord’s housing officer directly if he had any further concerns. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take to assist the resident in gathering evidence of ASB for its consideration.
It is evident that the landlord was appropriately considering and responding to the resident’s reports of ASB by visiting the resident’s neighbour and providing assistance to the resident in gathering evidence. However, given the repeated reports of ASB it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment. The landlord may have identified the potential risk have referred the resident to support services based on its risk assessment.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that a risk assessment “may” be completed at the initial interview. It says that with regards to vulnerable people, in “most” cases a victim risk assessment is carried out and where required the resident will be referred to or signposted to support services. This policy is open to interpretation and it is not clear where the threshold for carrying out a risk assessment lies. It is recommended that the landlord consider its policy wording so that it is clear when a risk assessment should take place.
When the resident raised a complaint, he reported significant distress as a result of ongoing dog barking and reported that he attempted suicide. The evidence indicates that the landlord further visited the resident’s neighbour and found that the neighbour had an unplanned hospital stay during this period and his relatives had been visiting the dog 2-3 times daily. While this was an unfortunate occurrence, the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.

The resident reported that he had received a threat from a relative of his neighbour. The landlord liaised with the police in relation to the report of a threat and at stage 2 said that it would provide the resident with an update of the police investigation. This was appropriate.
When investigating the handling of its ASB investigation, the landlord found that it should have called the resident before issuing its stage 1 complaint response and completed a risk assessment. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised to the resident, and provided training to the staff member. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take when it identified a failing.
When assessing the landlord’s response to the reports of noise nuisance the Ombudsman must consider the options available to the landlord and if it took appropriate action. The evidence shows that the landlord did take appropriate action. After receiving reports of noise nuisance, it:
1. Met with both parties to discuss a resolution.
2. Communicated the outcome with the resident.
3. Assisted the resident in gathering evidence through the noise app and offered noise monitoring equipment.
4. Offered mediation.
5. Liaised with the police in relation to the threats.
6. Offered a good neighbour contract.
7. Signposted the resident to support services.

Gave permission to the resident to install CCTV.

The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of ASB. This investigation found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the reports of ASB. Overall, it used its ASB procedure and options at its disposal effectively to address the issue for the resident in difficult circumstances. However, the landlord failed to evidence that it carried out a risk assessment when it began its ASB enquiries.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Order

It is ordered for the landlord apologise to the resident within 4 weeks for the failure identified in this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord consider its policy wording so that it is clear when a risk assessment should take place.