Together Housing Association Limited (202317601)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317601

Together Housing Association Limited

31 July 2025

Updated 15 October 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
2. complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in January 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord was aware that the resident has a mental health condition.
On 4 July 2022 the resident called the landlord to report that the neighbour below her was causing noise nuisance. She said she thought the neighbour was unable to control their behaviour. In September 2022 the resident told the landlord the noise was continuing. She said it included multiple loud outbursts, shouting and screaming between 2am and 6am on most days, which impacted her sleep and wellbeing.
The resident sent the landlord noise app recordings and regular diary logs covering most days between September 2022 and March 2023. The landlord agreed to move the resident or her neighbour in March 2023.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2023. The landlord logged a complaint on 19 September 2023. It said the resident was unhappy with its handling of the noise nuisance which she said she had experienced since the neighbour had moved to the property in April 2022. She was also unhappy that the landlord had not acknowledged or responded to her complaint.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance, and the neighbour moved to a different property around 29 September 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 October 2023. It:
1. apologised that it did not log the resident’s complaint of 21 June 2023.
2. said because of the neighbour’s complex needs and changes to staff handling, the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) case may have caused a delay in resolving it.
3. said it had sometimes failed to keep the resident up to date or contact her, and to meet the standards in its ASB policy.
4. acknowledged the impact on the resident’s mental health and offered £200 compensation.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2023. She said:
1. she wanted to know why the landlord had not raised a complaint when she chased it by email on 28 June 2023 or 6 July 2023.
2. the landlord had not considered the long-lasting impact on her health, sleep and wellbeing.
3. the case was only resolved because she started retaliating by making noise.
4. she calculated that she had spent £1,400 on bus fares to leave the property due to the noise nuisance. She asked the landlord to reimburse this.
5. she requested a total of £2,000 compensation including the bus fares.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. It said:
1. it accepted it had not logged her complaint despite her chasing emails.
2. it had not acknowledged her ASB evidence or updated her within its timescales and fell short of the standards in its ASB policy.
3. it recognised the impact on the resident and referred her for mental health support in March 2023. It said it had contacted her more since then.
4. taking enforcement action against the neighbour was not the most appropriate course of action. It said other agencies were involved, it had offered to move the resident, and it took time to move the neighbour.
5. it outlined learning from its handling of the ASB case.
6. it increased its offer of compensation to £650 for its failures in relation to the ASB and complaint handling.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered. She did not think the landlord considered the long-lasting impact which she said it has had on her wellbeing. The resident wanted increased compensation and the landlord to show learning from its failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said her physical and mental health was impacted, and she experienced significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the resident’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages in the same way as a court may. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Noise nuisance

The landlord’s definition of ASB included conduct that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It did not normally consider household noise such as closing doors or noise from walking on flooring to be ASB. But it would investigate if repeated incidents of behaviour it did not consider ASB had a harmful impact and caused a risk.
When noise nuisance was reported, the landlord’s ASB policy said it would log it and issue report sheets. If there was a risk to the resident, or if the resident sent evidence of noise nuisance, it said it would respond within 5 working days and refer to its ASB triage team for assessment.
The landlord’s ASB policy said it would:
1. respond to reports within response timescales and provide regular updates.
2. agree an action plan and regularly review this throughout the case.
3. take a risk-based approach, conduct a risk assessment at the start of an ASB case and reassess if circumstances changed.
4. consider moving a victim when there is evidence of risk.
5. work with other agencies and provide a holistic response.
6. keep in regular contact with the complainant throughout the case and ensure they felt updated and involved.
7. make appropriate use of the full range of ASB tools and powers available.
8. work with vulnerable residents and refer to appropriate support services.
The landlord’s ASB policy said that when behaviour was linked to an individual’s disability, it may take enforcement action depending on the circumstances of the case.
When the resident first reported noise nuisance in July 2022, the landlord did not assess whether the noise was ASB, or whether it would deal with her reports under its ASB policy. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not send the resident report sheets or assess whether there was a risk to her. This was not in line with its ASB policy and may have caused a delay in opening an ASB case.
In the first few months that the resident reported noise nuisance, the landlord failed to respond to her reports or update her in line with its ASB policy on multiple occasions, which was unreasonable. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses which was appropriate. The landlord opened an ASB case on 22 September 2022. It gave the resident access to a noise app to record evidence of the noise on 26 September 2022, which was appropriate.
When it opened an ASB case, the landlord completed a risk assessment. This was in line with its ASB policy. In the risk assessment, it noted that the resident was moderately affected and that her health had not been affected. On 8 November 2022 the resident said that the constant noise had seriously damaged her mental health. On 19 January 2023 she said the noise had severely impacted her mental and physical health due to sleep deprivation. The landlord did not reassess the risk at any point during the case. This was unreasonable and was not in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord noted its planned actions throughout the ASB case which was appropriate. However, it did not agree its action plans with the resident. Nor did it make its action plans, or the options available to the resident, clear to her throughout the case. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with other agencies including those involved with the neighbour’s care. It was appropriate for it to inform them of the resident’s reports of noise and encourage them to put measures in place to mitigate or reduce the noise. When some of these measures were not successful, a warning letter was sent to the neighbour around 28 November 2022, which was reasonable.
When the resident reported that the noise was continuing after a warning letter had been sent to the neighbour, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident. The landlord did not identify a clear plan of action, save for keeping in contact with the resident and those involved in the neighbour’s case. This was unreasonable.
The resident told the landlord that she did not think the neighbour could control their behaviour. She suggested that the neighbour’s property was not suitable for them on 24 November 2022. The landlord questioned the suitability of the neighbour’s accommodation with the agencies involved in their care on 19 January 2023. On 22 February 2023 it also offered them alternative accommodation that it said may be more suitable. This was reasonable.
On 23 January 2023, one of the agencies involved in the neighbour’s care confirmed they did not agree to the neighbour moving. The landlord did not assess this further or confirm its position on this to the resident and other agencies. Without this assessment, it would have been difficult for the landlord to decide the appropriate action to take, which may have contributed to its delay in taking further action.
The landlord visited the resident and referred her for mental health support on 8 March 2023, which was appropriate. However, until March 2023, it did not consider referring or signposting the resident for support. This was despite the resident reporting the impact of the noise on her health multiple times. This was not in line with its ASB policy. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had referred the resident for support in March 2023 but did not apologise for the delay in doing so. This was a missed opportunity to put things right.
The resident continued to report the noise and the significant impact on her wellbeing. It was therefore reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy for it to offer to move the resident around 21 March 2023. The resident confirmed she would prefer the neighbour to move but would be open to moving due to the impact of the noise on her. The landlord agreed to offer any suitable properties that became available to both the resident and her neighbour, which was reasonable.
On 26 April 2023 the resident told the landlord the noise had improved for a while but that the noise had started again. On 13 June 2023 she said she had sent the landlord noise recordings and that the previous month had been “horrific.” She said she was under extreme stress and feared she would need psychiatric help. The landlord did not reassess the risk or consider options to mitigate the impact of the noise until a suitable property became available and the neighbour eventually moved out around September 2023. This was unreasonable.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that enforcement action against the neighbour was not appropriate. However, it has not provided evidence that it considered or assessed this, or that it explained its position on enforcement action to the resident before its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable, and a failure to consider the range of options available to it.
From the resident’s first report of noise nuisance, she sent multiple emails chasing the landlord for updates and making enquiries that it did not respond to. She sent the landlord a significant amount of evidence including detailed descriptions of the noise covering most days from September 2022 until March 2023, and reports of similar noise in less detail from April to August 2023.
From 22 September 2022, she told the landlord the noise was impacting her sleep and work. From 8 November 2022 she reported the noise was having a significant impact on her physical and mental health. She frequently reported being in distress and crisis. The landlord was aware that the resident was having panic attacks and was no longer able to work due to her mental health.
The landlord’s compensation policy said it may offer compensation for poor complaint handling, taking an unreasonable amount of time and for not providing a service, meeting published response times, or following policy. It said it would consider the time and trouble taken to resolve a problem and acknowledge if this was excessive. It outlined the following levels of discretionary compensation according to the impact on the resident:
1. minor: up to £250 for service failure that had some impact of short duration.
2. moderate: from £250 to £700 for considerable service failure of up to 8 weeks with little or no updates, failure to follow policy that had a considerable impact on the resident.
3. severe: £700 and above for more than 8 weeks with physical, financial or emotional impact on the resident.
The Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) said factors to consider when deciding a remedy may include the length of time, frequency of occurrence, severity of service failure, number of failures, cumulative impact on the resident and their vulnerabilities. The landlord’s complaints policy said it will outline its service failures in its complaint responses.
The landlord offered £650 compensation in its stage 2 response. It is unclear what proportion of this was for the substantive complaint. Given the number of failures of service identified, the period they covered, and their long-lasting impact on the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering compensation for a severe impact on the resident in relation to its handling of her reports of noise nuisance.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for some of its failures, attempted to offer some redress for them and set out some learning. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for all its failures of service and its offer of compensation did not reflect the number of failures or their long-lasting impact on the resident. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
We have ordered the landlord to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £950 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is inclusive of the £650 already offered. This is in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance and is due to several factors including:
1. the length of time the failures of service occurred.
2. the frequency of the issue.
3. the time and trouble to resolve the issue.
4. the number of failures to follow policy and service failures identified.
5. the cumulative impact on the resident
6. the resident’s particular vulnerabilities.
7. the significant and long-lasting impact on her wellbeing.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Code and said it would:
1. acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and investigate them within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
When the resident called the landlord to make a complaint on 21 June 2023, it did not log or acknowledge the complaint. Nor did it do so when she requested an update from the landlord by email on 28 June 2023 or 6 July 2023. This was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord logged a complaint on 19 September 2023, and acknowledged it on 21 September 2023, 66 working days after the resident initially made a complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in August 2023 as she had not received an update and on 25 September 2023, we asked the landlord to respond to her complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 response 76 working days after her complaint which was an unreasonable delay. It apologised that her initial complaint was not logged sooner, which was appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, which the landlord acknowledged on 3 November 2023.
The Code said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for it to reimburse her bus fares in her stage 2 escalation, which was not in line with the Code.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised its delays in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 and “starting the review”. However, it did not apologise for issuing its stage 2 response outside its complaints policy timescales or its failure to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2. Nor did it demonstrate any learning from its complaint handling or acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble in involving the Ombudsman at stage 1. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering redress. However, it was not clear what proportion of the compensation it offered was for the failures in its complaint handling.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord may deduct the compensation offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if this has already been paid. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s request to reimburse her bus fares.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. provide an apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
  2. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
  3. respond to her request to reimburse her bus fares.
2. pay the resident a total of £1,200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £950 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. the landlord may deduct the £650 it offered at stage 2 if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
3. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.