South Tyneside Council (202347851)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow under an agreement dated May 2015. She has several physical health vulnerabilities known to the landlord. The resident has raised ongoing issues about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour since 2020.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s communication with the resident following her reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident following her reports of ASB.
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Communication with the resident following her reports of ASB

5. We found that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports of ASB in line with its own ASB policy. It did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses.

Complaint handling

6. We found that the landlord identified delays in its responses and offered reasonable compensation and / or explanation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident said that in April 2025 a staff member had diverted all her emails to a holding account instead of responding. She believed this explained the lack of replies to her ASB reports. As an outcome, she wanted the staff member dismissed. This Service cannot order landlords to take disciplinary action against their staff. We are unable to assess how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
8. The matter of the holding account did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the Ombudsman’s involvement. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed. Therefore, we have not assessed the issue in this report.
9. The resident has raised several complaints with the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. We will not assess complaints that seek to raise again matters which we or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, the focus of this investigation is about the landlord’s communication with the resident as addressed in its complaint responses. Assessment of the actions taken by the landlord to resolve the ASB are addressed in separate complaints.

What we did investigate

10. The resident has multiple, ongoing complaints about her neighbour’s ASB. This investigation has focused on the period from the resident’s complaint on 22 February 2024 to the landlord’s final response on 4 November 2024. Reference to events that occurred outside of these times are for context.
11. The resident reported ASB and noise disturbance on 31 January 2024. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange the installation of a noise monitoring application on 14 February 2024. The landlord’s response did not align with its ASB policy which states it will acknowledge ASB reports within 3 working days. This was a service failure.
12. The resident complained that the landlord had not responded to her ASB reports. The landlord’s staff communicated with the resident at least 4 times between 14 and 26 February 2024 and offered support. Whilst the resident may have been unhappy to deal with a particular staff member, the landlord did make efforts to address her reports.
13. In her escalation request, the resident said that the landlord had disregarded a previous agreement to discuss complaints with her face to face. The evidence shows that the landlord texted the resident twice on 26 February 2024, offering to meet and discuss the ASB. The resident responded by telling the staff member not to contact her again.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had emailed the resident 3 more appointments to discuss her complaint on a recorded telephone line. It said the resident did not confirm any of the appointments. Whilst this was not face–to–face, the evidence shows that the resident was under restricted contact with the landlord, limiting her communication options. Accordingly, we are unable to assess if what the landlord offered was reasonable.
15. The resident said she replied to the landlord’s appointment offers by requesting contact by letter. She had previously asked not to be emailed and raised this with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In January 2024 the LGSCO stated there was no requirement for the landlord to respond solely by post, noting the resident frequently used email and had not shown any disability affecting communication. Based on this, the landlord’s communication was fair. The resident received the appointment details but chose not to confirm.
16. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in communicating with the resident in January 2024. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right. We have therefore made an order to pay the resident £50 for any distress or inconvenience caused, which is in line with our Remedies Guidance for findings which have had no permanent impact.

17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the day after she raised it. This was in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code).
18. On 13 March 2024 the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to provide its complaint response. It issued its stage 1 complaint response 4 working days later. Whilst it was in line with the Code to inform the resident of an extension, it would have been reasonable to have done this before the response due date on 7 March 2024. However, the landlord identified the delay in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £25 compensation. This was reasonable.
19. The resident escalated her complaint by email. At the time of the escalation, the landlord had applied contact restrictions to the resident. It had written to her on 21 March 2024 stating that she could not raise or escalate complaints by email, only in writing.
20. We are unable to confirm if the landlord received the escalation request, however it responded and sent acknowledgement to the resident immediately once notified of it by this Service. This was reasonable. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 19 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with the Code.
21. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation of £25 is reoffered to the resident if this has not already been paid.

Learning

22. The landlord’s record keeping has been clear and efficient. It has provided this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation.