Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202453379)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bed flat within a low-rise block of similar flats. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of loud music coming from his property. The resident said its investigation was “excessive”, that it “entrapped” him, and that the housing officer’s behaviour was insensitive.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of loud music from the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of loud music from the resident’s property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of loud music from the resident’s property.

6. The landlord’s response to the report of loud music was reasonable, proportionate, and in line with its policy.

Handling of the complaint.

7. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes outlined in its complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It did not acknowledge this.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The evidence shows that on 10 January 2025, 2 staff members who worked for the landlord visited an address on the street where the resident lived. The staff members reported hearing loud music coming from the resident’s property. They described it as very long and lasting approximately 10 minutes. The staff members spoke to 2 neighbours on the street who said this was a regular issue. As a result they reported the noise to the resident’s HO.
9. The staff members who heard the music were carrying out a visit about an unrelated matter and did not work for the department that would investigate such issues. It was therefore reasonable that they did not approach the resident themselves and instead reported the incident to the HO.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will not normally consider one-off incidents of noise including music, as ASB. However, the staff members who reported the music said 2 neighbours had reported this was a regular occurrence. The evidence also shows a neighbour had previously complained about the noise a year earlier in February 2024. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord opened an ASB case and carried out investigations.
11. The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbours on 24 January 2025 and asked if they had witnessed any loud music within the street. The email did not contain any information which could identify the resident.
12. On 4 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord a neighbour had told him the landlord was investigating loud music from his property. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had contacted his neighbours before speaking with him about the issue. He said he felt this was “entrapment”.
13. The ASB policy states the landlord’s investigations will include taking statements from victims, witnesses, and alleged perpetrators. It does not specify in what order this should be done. We acknowledge the resident’s distress at the landlord not contacting him first. However, it was reasonable that it wanted to ascertain further details of the alleged ASB and how many people the alleged behaviour was impacting before doing so.
14. The landlord’s policy states it will ascertain whether an alleged perpetrator has any support needs and offer support where appropriate. By asking questions related to the resident’s mental health and work situation and offering to refer him for further support, the landlord was attempting to do this. However, we acknowledge the resident’s concerns that the questions felt insensitive. It may have minimised the upset caused to the resident if the HO made clear her reasons for asking these questions and explained she was doing so to ensure it could offer the correct support.
15. Following its investigations the landlord asked the resident to keep his music to a moderate level that could not be heard outside the property. This was in accordance with the terms of his tenancy agreement.
16. The landlord said it would consider tenancy enforcement action if it continued to receive complaints about loud music. This was in line with its policy which resolve cases using an appropriate level of intervention. It had warned the resident verbally and in writing about his behaviour. It would therefore be proportionate to consider further action if the behaviour continued.
17. The resident has stated in his communications with us that he has purchased a decibel meter and was ensuring his music remained within “legal limits”. This demonstrates he is considering the comfort of his neighbours and working to comply with the terms of his tenancy. The landlord closed its ASB case in May 2025 having taken no further action.
18. Overall, the landlord acted proportionately and in accordance with its ASB policy to uphold the terms of the resident’s tenancy. We therefore find no maladministration in its handling of reports of loud music.

19. It took the landlord 16 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This is not in line with the 10-working day timeframe outlined in its own complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response.
20. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timeframe outline in its policy and the Code.
21. The landlord’s complaint responses reasonably addressed all the points raised in the resident’s complaint and escalation request.
22. Overall, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and it failed to apologise for this. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
23. Where there has been a minor failing which was of a short duration and did not significantly impact the outcome of the case, our remedies guidance suggests compensation of £50 to £100 is proportionate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for time and trouble and to apologise for its complaint handling delay.

Learning

Communication

24. We found no issues with the landlord’s communication.

Knowledge and information management (KIM)

25. We found no issues in the landlord’s record keeping.