Town and Country Housing (202401087)

Background

1. The resident and his daughter lived in a first-floor property and reported noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours to the landlord. They moved from the property in August 2025. The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was the subject of the resident’s complaint. We have referred to the resident and his daughter as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The reports of ASB

6. The landlord did not use all the tools available to deal with anti-social behaviour as set out in its policy. It did not explain what evidence it needed to take action or help manage the resident’s expectations. It did not offer proportionate compensation for the impact of its poor handling of the issue.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to complete the actions it committed to in its stage 1 response or say if it upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with our complaint handling code. It did not offer compensation to put things right.

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 follow 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.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident said the landlord’s handling of ASB affected his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

9. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it responded to another complaint from the resident about its handling of his ASB reports in 2022. This investigation looks at events the landlord responded to in its final complaint response in September 2023 which included the period from January 2023 to its final complaint response.
10. We do not investigate the ASB or noise nuisance itself. But we have looked at how the landlord handled the resident’s reports and complaints about ASB. We have assessed whether the landlord followed its policies, acted reasonably, and communicated effectively.
11. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord it failed to address noise issues from his neighbour who lived in the property above. He said its previous actions, which included offering mediation and fitting new carpet, had not addressed the noise or his neighbour’s behaviour. He said he could hear shouting, swearing, and banging during the day and night which affected his sleep and enjoyment of his home. He wanted the landlord to take action to address the neighbour’s noise and behaviour.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained the action it had taken in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It said it previously mentioned issuing an ABC to his neighbour and, following his recent reports, it should consider this option. It told him that an officer would visit him to discuss the current issues, agree an action plan, and show him how to submit noise recordings.
13. The resident escalated his complaint in August 2023. He said the landlord failed to carry out the actions it committed to in its stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed it failed to complete the actions. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation. It said it would meet him, produce an action plan, and meet with his neighbour. It said it learnt from the complaint, and it reminded its staff about the importance of following the ASB procedure. It also said it was updating its ASB procedure.
14. The landlord sent the resident a copy of its action plan and completed a risk assessment after it sent its final response. It also said it would issue an ABC, which it completed on 11 October 2023.
15. The landlord’s ASB policy explains the landlord and resident’s responsibilities and what action the landlord can take to respond to noise nuisance and ASB. It used some of the early interventions its policy lists when responding to the resident’s reports. It sent warning letters, carried out home visits, and used its ASB budget to pay for new carpet in the neighbour’s property. It also considered using an ABC and noise recording equipment. However, there were actions it did not carry out in line with its policy. It did not complete a risk assessment or an action plan until after it sent its stage 2 response. It referred to an action plan in its stage 1 response, but it did not provide a copy of this.
16. The resident sent the landlord recordings of noise nuisance and evidence of the sound levels. It reviewed the recordings, but it did not explain how it might use them, or the level of evidence it needed to take further action. The landlord arranged access to a noise app for the resident to record evidence of noise incidents. However, it did not explain why it could not rely on the recordings he already sent. There is no evidence the landlord contacted other neighbours to gather evidence of noise nuisance and ASB.
17. The ASB policy says it will take account of a risk assessment when it completes an action plan. It says the action plan will clearly set out the expectations of the landlord and resident and it would review this at an agreed level or when circumstances change. The landlord missed the opportunity to risk assess the situation and create an action plan with the resident. Explaining what it could do to address the ASB, and reassuring the resident it understood the issues, would have helped manage his expectations.
18. The ASB policy says if a resident is unhappy with the way their landlord has handled their ASB case they should consider contacting their local authority to find out how to raise a Community Trigger. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about this or provided information about how he could find out more about it.
19. The ASB policy says the landlord believes residents have an important role in responding to ASB and noise nuisance. It lists what it asks the resident to do in relation to this. The resident followed the landlord’s advice and did the actions the policy listed. He communicated with the landlord while it investigated and proactively reported incidents.
20. Overall, the landlord took some action in response to the resident’s reports. However, it did not follow its ASB policy consistently and missed opportunities to act earlier. It recognised its failure in its stage 2 response and tried to put things right. However, this was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience it caused him. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
21. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing and pay him £300. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where maladministration caused time, trouble, and distress to the resident the landlord has not proportionately addressed.
22. The resident made a further stage 2 complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB in May 2024. If he is unhappy with its final response, he can ask us to investigate.
23. The resident moved from the property in August 2025 so we have not made any orders for the landlord to discuss the ASB with him.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
25. The landlord extended the target date for its stage 1 response by 10 working days to 21 July 2023 and explained this was due to the complexities of the matter. This was in keeping with our complaint handling code. It sent its stage 1 response 5 working days earlier than its proposed response date.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint 1 working day later than its target timescale but it met all other complaint response timescales.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint referred to its ASB policy to support its findings, but it did not provide a timescale it would work towards to address the ASB. However, its final complaint response was detailed and showed empathy for the resident’s circumstances. It offered the resident compensation, explained what it would do to address the ASB, and the lessons it learnt from the complaint. Its response was in keeping with our dispute remedies guidance: to be fair, put matters right, and learn from outcomes. But it did not clearly say if it upheld the stage 2 complaint.
28. Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay £50 compensation for its minor failings, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord recognised its poor recording keeping. Its database did not hold all the records relating to its ASB case and actions.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident was supportive. It met with him regularly and made suggestions to address the reported ASB. However, it could have improved its communication by explaining the level of evidence needed to tackle the ASB using non-legal remedies to manage his expectations.