Teign Housing (202448011)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448011

Teign Housing

19 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of disrepair and damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2011. He lives in the property with his wife, a semi-detached bungalow. The landlord is aware of the resident’s disability and mental health condition. Both the resident and his wife made reports of ASB to the landlord during their complaint. For ease they are referred interchangeably as “the resident” within this report.
The resident reported that a neighbour’s dog was barking all day and into the night on 29 July 2024. They told the landlord they had tried to speak to the neighbour about it, but they were unwilling to take any action. They said the problem was affecting the resident’s mental health condition.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour in August 2024. It warned them the noise nuisance was a breach of tenancy. It asked the resident to download the noise app on 6 September 2024.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2025. They were unhappy the landlord had not taken action to resolve the noise nuisance. They said it had taken 10 weeks for it to reply to their first report. They had not heard from their Housing Officer for 7 weeks. The constant barking meant they could not have their windows open. It was causing them distress. They did not feel the landlord was taking their concerns seriously.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 January 2025. It upheld the resident’s complaint because it had not been in contact as much as it would have liked. It assured them the local authority’s Environmental Health Team had arranged to install noise monitoring equipment on 28 January 2025. It would review the evidence from those recordings, agree a way forward with the resident, and provide fortnightly updates to them.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 28 January 2025. They were unhappy the landlord had not taken action against their neighbour. The ASB had escalated from noise nuisance to their neighbour knocking at their door making threats. The landlord visited the resident on 12 February 2025 to discuss their complaint. The resident raised 18 points around its handling of their reports of ASB during that meeting.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 February 2025. It responded to each of the 18 points the resident made in turn. Below is a concise summary of what it told the resident:
1. It apologised that it did not update them on the actions it had taken to escalate the noise complaint to environmental health. It also apologised that a letter the resident sent by recorded delivery had not been passed to the named member of staff it was addressed to.
2. It felt it already had sufficient evidence from the noise app so that was why it asked the resident to limit uploads to 1 per day. It did not agree that it had not acted on the evidence from the noise app. It had contacted, visited and sent a warning letter to the neighbour. It had also involved environmental health.
3. It did not accept its actions amounted to gross negligence and it had delivered refresher training to its staff.
4. To evict their neighbour, it required a court order and strong evidence. The local authority had issued a community protection warning to the neighbour, which could escalate to a community protection notice if the behaviour persisted. Enforcement action could take several months to complete.
5. The reason it had split the complaint was due to the resident’s formal escalation. It was still considering the ASB under an ASB case and its response to that under a formal complaint.
6. It did not agree that it failed to protect vulnerable tenants. It pointed to the welfare check it made on 28 January 2025 following the threats made to the resident. It said it provided details of how to contact victim support.
7. It did not tell the neighbour the ASB complaint had came from the resident. At the resident’s request it also agreed that its staff member would not accompany environmental health during the installation of the noise monitoring equipment.
8. It had not refused to look at the resident’s evidence. There was still evidence the resident had provided that it needed to review. The reasons it had not yet looked at all the evidence was due to the staff member responsible being new to post. There were also some issues with the cyber-security in relation to internet links where some of the evidence was stored on a video hosting website.
The resident escalated their complaint to this Service on 27 February 2025. They were not satisfied that the landlord was taking their concerns seriously. They said it allowed their neighbour to breach their tenancy agreement. They wanted the landlord to pay them compensation, relocate them, review its policies and enforce its rules.
Since the stage 2 response the ASB has continued and further action has been taken:
1. The landlord notified the resident on 13 March 2025 that environmental health served an abatement notice on their neighbour.
2. The landlord took some formal non-legal actions in respect of the ASB in April 2025 and June 2025.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident did not mention the condition of their home in their written stage 1 complaint. During a meeting at their home to discuss their stage 1 complaint in January 2025 the resident had a lengthy discussion with the landlord about the condition of their home. They made it clear they were unhappy with the disrepair and damp and mould. The landlord asked if they wanted it to take those concerns away. The resident said they wanted to resolve the ASB complaint before moving onto the disrepair issues. Given that, it was reasonable the landlord did not investigate those concerns in its stage 1 response.
The resident again brought up the condition of their home in detail during a meeting with the landlord to discuss their stage 2 complaint in February 2025. The landlord asked if they wanted it to raise the repair issues with its contractor. The resident said they did not because they did not want the disturbance of potentially having to move out temporarily. The landlord later offered to instruct its surveyor to complete a survey, but the resident did not agree to that. It explained to the resident that they should contact it if they changed their mind about wanting to progress the repair issues. The landlord summarised that conversation in its stage 2 response.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. An exception applies if there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident raised their concerns about the condition of the property during the 2 in person meetings. However, they did not ask the landlord to consider those issues as part of their formal complaint about its handling of ASB. Having reviewed the evidence there is no evidence of a complaint-handling failure.
Therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider those matters under its internal complaints policy. As a result, the resident’s complaint about its handling of their reports of disrepair and damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss their concerns of disrepair and damp and mould. If the resident makes a new complaint under the landlord’s internal complaints policy, they may then bring this complaint to this Service in the future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether an incident amounts to ASB or whether ASB had occurred. Instead, it is the role of this Service to consider the actions taken by the landlord when reports of alleged ASB have been made to it and to decide whether those actions were appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has said the landlord’s inaction and delays in dealing with their noise nuisance reports has negatively affected their mental health condition. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can independently consider evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. As such the actions it took later in 2025 will not be considered in this report. This report will consider the complaint that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 25 February 2025.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Under the terms of the landlord’s tenancy agreements, it allows its residents to own pets. It says residents must not allow their pets to cause a nuisance to anyone. It can withdraw permission at any time if a pet causes a nuisance. It may take legal action if a resident does not comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement. The landlord’s estate management policy supports the tenancy agreement. It says if the behaviour of pets causes nuisance to neighbours it is considered a breach of tenancy and the resident will either have to remedy the problem or face enforcement action.
The landlord has an ASB policy which is supported by an ASB procedure. For ease these will be referenced jointly as the landlord’s ASB policy. Under its ASB policy it says it will not investigate noise nuisance complaints as ASB in the first instance. It says it will respond to reports of noise nuisance within 5 working days. During that contact it should interview the complainant and complete an action plan. The landlord says it will be mindful of any vulnerability, support needs, and safeguarding issues.
Once it has set up a case the landlord says it will keep all parties informed of any progress. There should be regular agreed contact, at least every 2 weeks. It will increase the frequency of contact where there is a high vulnerability factor. It should hold monthly case reviews with the complainant and update an impact assessment form.
The policy states that it will write to the alleged perpetrator detailing the allegations made against them. It will warn them against such conduct and of the consequences of continued ASB. The landlord says it will work hard to resolve complaints of ASB as quickly as possible. It works with key-partner agencies to explore the full range of tools available as per the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Remedies at its disposal include but are not limited to formal warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, formal enforcement action, and possession.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was in line with its ASB policy. It contacted them within 5 working days on 5 August 2024. The action it took of sending a letter to the neighbour was proportionate. However, it was not appropriate it did not contact the resident to complete an action plan and better understand their vulnerabilities. It also did not provide an update as it said it would. That resulted in the resident having to chase up the matter on 2 September 2024.
While the landlord’s response in offering a home visit to discuss the resident’s concerns in September 2024 was reasonable it has not provided evidence that visit took place. An e-mail sent to the resident on 12 September 2024 asks them whether it took place. That did not show the landlord was effectively monitoring its response. It also asked the resident to download the noise app in that e-mail. That action was appropriate as it would allow them to provide further evidence for the landlord to consider. Had the landlord agreed an action plan it could have discussed the benefits of the noise app with the resident. It would have been able to explain what it required from the resident. As it was the resident did not start using the app at this point. That meant the landlord did not have any evidence and there is no record further action was taken on the case until the resident began submitting recordings.
When the resident asked for an update in October 2024 the landlord repeated its request for them to install the noise app. The resident opened a case on the noise app on 17 October 2024. They uploaded recordings almost daily thereafter. The landlord was prompt in taking action later that month after listening to the noise app recordings. It e-mailed the neighbour on 23 October 2024 and told them it had received anonymous reports of their dog barking. It warned them repeated instances could be a breach of their tenancy. It followed that up with an in person visit 6 days later. That action was proportionate and in line with its ASB and estate management policy. However, it is not appropriate there is no record it told the resident about that action. In line with its ASB policy it should have kept them updated of its progress.
The resident told the landlord the situation had not improved on 14 November 2024. They wanted the landlord to escalate their noise reports. The landlord responded the next day and apologised for not keeping them updated. It assured them it would speak with the neighbour again. It also said it had escalated their concerns to environmental health. While involving a partner agency was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy it missed the opportunity to explain to the resident why it had done so. It said it would update the resident after environmental health reached an outcome from its assessment. That was not reasonable, it was not known how long the environmental health assessment would take. The landlord was not following its ASB policy as it should have been keeping the resident updated regularly.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 November 2024 unhappy it had not been in contact for 10 days. They followed that up with further contact on 1 and 3 December 2024. They were frustrated at the lack of response and repeated the noise nuisance was affecting their mental health. It was not appropriate the landlord did not respond on any of those 3 occasions. That resulted in the resident raising a stage 1 complaint in a letter to its Chief Executive. Had the landlord agreed an action plan when the resident made their initial reports of noise nuisance it could have prevented its failure to keep the resident updated. That in turn may have prevented the resident from feeling they had to escalate their concerns to a formal complaint.
It was appropriate the landlord updated the resident on 7 January 2025 after it received their complaint. It told them environmental health wanted to install noise monitoring equipment in their home to help with the investigation. It apologised that the resident felt they had not been heard. It explained that the noise app was the first step in considering noise nuisance, but the noise monitoring equipment was more advanced so would provide better evidence. It would have been appropriate to have provided that explanation when it first told the resident it was going to involve environmental health.
The resident e-mailed the landlord after its update on the same day, 7 January 2025. They said they had also been uploading noise recordings of a second dog from a different neighbour to the noise app. They asked if the landlord was aware they wanted it to investigate the noise at both addresses. They were also concerned for the welfare of the second dog. The landlord’s approach at that stage was reasonable. It said it had visited the second address and saw no signs of neglect or mistreatment of the dog. They said the resident should contact the RSCPA if they remained concerned about the dog’s welfare. They also agreed to contact that neighbour about the noise complaint.
The landlord went some way to putting things right at stage 1. It accepted it had not kept the resident updated. It showed it had learned from that when it told them it had updated its internal systems to ensure ASB complainants received more regular updates. It was reasonable that it provided an update about environmental health’s plans to install the noise recording equipment.
However, the landlord missed an opportunity to consider if all its actions in addressing the noise reports were reasonable. It did not identify its failure to carry out an impact assessment, despite the resident telling it the impact the noise had on their mental health. That failure to carry out a risk assessment, as set out within its policy, meant the landlord was not able to determine if the actions it was taking was reducing any risk of harm. It also did not address its failure to agree an action plan. Due to that failure, it had failed to keep the resident updated every 2 weeks or hold monthly meetings as its policy says. That left the resident unclear about what actions it was taking or what it expected from them regarding providing evidence.
The landlord did not consider the other tools at its disposal at that time such as asking whether mediation would be something the resident would consider or if an acceptable behaviour contract was appropriate. Although it is at the landlord’s discretion on when it takes specific action there was no evidence it considered further options as its policy says it will.
The landlord acted quickly when the resident provided video evidence of their neighbour making threats on 23 January 2025. It issued a tenancy breach warning letter to the neighbour the next day. While that action was appropriate, given the ASB had escalated from noise nuisance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete an impact assessment in line with its ASB policy. The landlord showed it considered the resident’s well being when it called on 28 January 2025 to ask how the situation had been since the threats. That call ended because the resident became upset, so it was appropriate the landlord followed it up with an email confirming it had escalated their complaint. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to signpost them to support services in that email.
It was appropriate the landlord was in regular contact with environmental health as it had since collected the noise monitoring equipment. Environmental health told the landlord it would review the recordings on 11 February 2025.
It was appropriate that the landlord updated the resident on the actions it and the local authority had taken via a message on the noise app on 7 February 2025. It said the local authority issued a community protection warning following the neighbour’s threats and the landlord had also issued them with a breach of tenancy warning. It also acted to put things right from its earlier failing when it signposted them to victim support regarding the threats.
The landlord’s stage 2 response fell short of putting things right. Although it apologised for its communication failings it did not recognise the full extent of its failures in handling the ASB case. It did not identify its failure to complete an action plan or impact assessment. As a result of that it missed the opportunity to put those failings right by completing those actions as part of the stage 2 complaint. It put the onus on the actions being taken by its partner agencies and did not consider its own role in preventing further ASB. While it sent a breach of tenancy warning after the threats it did not show the resident that it had considered the other tools available to it under its own ASB policy.
During the in person meeting to discuss the stage 2 complaint the resident repeated their concerns about the second dog barking. As they had also been uploading noise app recordings from that dog it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed that in its stage 2 response. It should have considered whether it was appropriate to open an ASB case specific to that address. In not doing so it did not show it had taken the resident’s concerns about that second dog seriously. The landlord also did not consider its compensation policy. Given the lack of updates and the that the landlord’s failings contributed to the resident’s distress over the situation it would have been appropriate to award them compensation.
During the resident’s complaint the landlord did not manage their ASB reports in accordance with its ASB policy and failed to keep the resident updated. It did not update them every 2 weeks or conduct monthly case review meetings at any stage as it should have done under its ASB policy. At both stages of the complaint the landlord apologised for its poor communication but did not provide any solutions to stop the same problems happening in the future. It should have considered completing an action plan with the resident and an impact assessment. That would have showed the resident it had learned from its failings.
After it involved environmental health and the local authority the landlord was not proactive in managing the resident’s ASB case. It made the decision to effectively wait for the outcome of the partner agencies’ action despite the resident continuing to report instances of ASB. This was not appropriate given there were tools in its ASB policy that it had not yet used or considered. It also did not show it was working as quickly as possible as its policy says it will. For those reasons and the reasons above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It has also failed to formally address the resident’s continued concerns about a second dog barking.
When considering an appropriate amount of compensation this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the £150 allowed under the landlord’s policy does not go far enough in recognising the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident. For that reason the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation. That figure falls within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance.
Orders have also been made below for the landlord to complete an action plan and impact assessment for their existing ASB case. The landlord should also discuss the residents concerns about the second dog.

Landlord’s complaint handling

At the time the resident raised their complaint the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was statutory. The Code states that landlords should have a 2-stage complaints policy. Landlords should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It should provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. It should ensure each stage of a complaint is investigated by a different member of staff. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time reflected the Code.
When the resident complained to the landlord’s Chief Executive it registered a stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it within 5 working days. Although the landlord issued its stage 1 response a day later than it should have been under the Code, it had been proactive in meeting with the resident to discuss their concerns ahead of its response.
The landlord both acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the time allowed under the Code. It also met with the resident to better understand their complaint which allowed it to address each point they raised in turn in its response.
Other than a 1-day delay in providing its stage 1 response the landlord complied with its obligations under the Code. A different member of its staff investigated each stage. It also showed it was customer focused when it met with the resident at both stages to discuss their complaint in detail. For those reasons there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of their reports of disrepair and damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of their reports of ASB.
3. Complete an action plan with the resident including timeframes for how it intends to progress their case. It should also update the resident on the actions taken since the stage 2 complaint and the current position of the ASB case.
4. Complete an impact assessment to understand how the ASB issues are affecting the resident’s mental health. It should discuss with the resident what support it can offer them.
5. Contact the resident to discuss their concerns about the noise nuisance relating to the dog barking at a different neighbouring property. It should then consider whether it is appropriate to open a separate noise case under its ASB policy.
The landlord should provide this Service with proof of compliance with the orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss their concerns about the disrepair of their home within 4 weeks of the date of this report.