Wiltshire Council (202504083)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202504083

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Wiltshire Council

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

18 May 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She complained to the landlord about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour above her. She said the ongoing noise nuisance was affecting her health. The landlord was aware the resident had health vulnerabilities, including a neurodevelopmental condition.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s ASB reports were prompt and reasonable. Where it delayed in a response, it made attempts to put things right. However, it missed early opportunities to complete risk assessments and action plans.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the 2024 Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic
  • it has due regard to our apologies guidance

No later than

15 June 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £50 as offered in its complaint response, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

15 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

29 November to 4 December 2024

The resident reported ongoing ASB from her neighbours above her. She said she heard banging on her ceiling all day and night. The landlord opened an ASB case and the resident agreed to upload evidence onto its ASB app. The landlord said it would look at installing noise recording equipment (NRE) in her property. It sent a warning letter to the neighbour.

5 December 2024

The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been reporting the ASB for over a year and the app did not work. She described the impact of the noise and said she had attempted to log complaints twice before. She said she was unhappy the landlord would not give an installation date for the NRE and wanted it to speak to the neighbours.

9 December 2024

The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It detailed the actions taken following her previous ASB reports. It confirmed the app worked as she had submitted recordings. It acknowledged her health concerns and offered support and mediation. It said whilst they had discussed the ASB on 2 previous occasions, she had not raised a complaint. It said it had taken appropriate action based on the reports and would visit the neighbour on 10 December 2024. It said there was a waiting list but could install the NRE on 18 December 2024.

11 December 2024

The landlord called the resident to discuss the possibility of mediation. The resident declined and said she wanted to make ‘a stage 2 complaint’ as she said nothing was being done.

24 February 2025

The resident escalated her complaint saying she had been reporting the noise nuisance since she moved in. She said she’d had problems with the NRE previously and felt the landlord was siding with the neighbours.

28 April 2025

The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It detailed how it had dealt with her ASB reports. This included installing NRE, carrying out a risk assessment, offering mediation and addressing concerns about the neighbour’s bins. It explained how it considered her vulnerabilities when offering her the property. It apologised for a delay in responding to an ASB report and offered £50 for any inconvenience.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us the stress from the noise had caused her physical and mental health problems. She said she wanted the landlord to apologise and increase the compensation to reflect the impact on her life. We have since been told the neighbours have moved to another property.

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.

Complaint

The handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Finding

Service failure

What we did not investigate

  1. When considering complaints about ASB, it is not our role to reach a decision on whether the behaviour has occurred as reported. Our role is to consider whether the landlord has responded to the reports in line with its policies and procedures, if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
  2. The resident said the noise nuisance had a detrimental impact on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best equipped to resolve such matters with the support of independent medical evidence. We have not investigated this further. We can assess if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

  1. On 17 October 2023 the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbours in the flat above her. The landlord called her 4 working days later and explained how she could build a case for ASB. There is no evidence of any further response from the resident.
  2. On 18 April 2024 a police report stated the resident and her neighbours were having arguments. The resident said noise from the neighbours was causing her stress and she was unable to sleep or study. The landlord called her the same day. It acknowledged the impact on her and sent a link to its ASB application (app) so she could log further incidents. This was in line with its good neighbourhood management policy which said it would provide accessible methods for residents to gather and submit evidence. It also offered a referral to Victim Support.
  3. It is unclear if the landlord had an ASB policy at this time. This is because we have only seen a policy it implemented later. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable to have carried out a risk assessment and created an action plan for her. This would have aligned with the Anti‑social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which encourages a “victim-first” approach. However, the landlord was taking action in response to her reports.
  4. The resident logged reports on the ASB app on 6 and 7 May 2024. The landlord explained on 28 May 2024 it did not categorise the noise as ASB as it did not appear targeted or deliberate. It is unclear why it took 14 working days to respond to the reports. However, in its complaint response it apologised for not responding sooner and said it had recruited more staff to deal with ASB reports. It offered compensation for the inconvenience in line with its, an our own, compensation policy, for minor failures with a low impact. It is unclear if this was paid to the resident.
  5. Between 28 May and 12 June 2024, the landlord asked the resident twice if there had been any further ASB incidents. There is no evidence the resident reported any further events to the landlord. It was therefore reasonable for it to consider the matter resolved. On 26 June 2024 it informed the resident it was closing the ASB case due to receiving no further reports. There is no evidence the resident was unhappy with this decision.
  6. There was no contact from the resident until she reported further ASB from the neighbour on 29 November 2024. Within 4 working days, the landlord responded to the resident and wrote to the neighbour. It said it would contact the resident in a few days to discuss installing NRE. It is unclear if the landlord planned to carry out a risk assessment or complete an action plan as the resident raised a complaint the following day.
  7. In her complaint, the resident described the noises as “banging, stamping, shouting and screaming at all hours.” She said she had health problems and could not sleep because of the noise which she had been reporting for over a year. In its complaint response, the landlord explained the steps it had taken in response to her previous reports. It offered a Victim Support referral and advised she speak to her GP. It offered mediation with the neighbour who it was visiting the next day to discuss tenancy action. This was in line with its good neighbourhood management policy which said it would provide signposting and advice and refer parties to mediation where needed.
  8. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a risk assessment or action plan. However, it continued to take prompt action in response to her reports. The landlord visited the neighbour as arranged, who agreed to mediation with the resident. The resident declined mediation.
  9. On 19 December 2024 the resident said she no longer wanted the NRE as she felt it was recording her conversations. She acknowledged that by not providing evidence, the ASB case would be closed. The landlord carried out a risk assessment and offered a Victim Support referral, which she declined. It liaised with the police, social services and a multi‑agency safeguarding hub regarding the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s children. The landlord acted in line with its good neighbourhood management policy.
  10. On 14 February 2025 the neighbours made a counter allegation of ASB against the resident, stating she had been verbally abusive towards their children. The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident who escalated her complaint saying she had been incorrectly accused. She said she had been reporting ASB issues from the neighbours since moving in and felt the landlord was siding with the neighbour. She later added the neighbour’s garden bins were damaged and the exposed rubbish was attracting rats.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated the actions taken in response to the ASB reports and concluded it handled them appropriately. It said it had since adopted a new ASB policy. It explained how it fully considered the resident’s vulnerabilities before offering her the property which included an occupational therapist assessment. However, it recognised she had made ongoing ASB reports since moving in and had since introduced more frequent checks for new residents. It was positive the landlord demonstrated learning in its responses. It also noted it had addressed the bin issue.
  12. In her escalation, the resident said the NRE recorded for a longer period than she was advised. In its response, the landlord explained that occupants of her property repeatedly shouted over the officer installing the NRE. They had agreed the resident would read the terms and conditions once the officer left. It is unclear if the resident read the terms and conditions which may have clarified the recording times.
  13. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord completed another risk assessment and action plan for the resident. It sent tenancy action to the neighbours who were rehoused.
  14. In summary, the landlord responded and acted promptly on the resident’s ASB reports. Where it delayed in responding, it provided redress in line with our compensation guidance for failures of a low impact. However, considering her vulnerabilities, it could have completed a risk assessment or action plan at earlier opportunities. This was a minor failure which did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  15. Our compensation guidance deems an apology appropriate redress for failures that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to apologise, in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right. As it is unclear if the landlord paid the resident the compensation it offered, we have also made an order to pay this.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The Code sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the 2024 edition applies. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
  2. The Code requires complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days and stage 1 responses within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and issued its stage 1 response 2 working days later, in line with the Code.
  3. The resident said she tried to raise complaints twice before which had not been actioned. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. In its response, the landlord detailed its interactions with the resident on the 2 occasions she referred to. It explained on 29 November 2024, she reported ASB and it opened an ASB case. On 4 December 2024, they discussed the ASB process. It said it had not received an indication of a complaint. The landlord’s response was in line with its policy.
  4. During a call from the landlord on 11 December 2024, the resident said she wanted to make a stage 2 complaint. The Code says landlords must acknowledge and log escalations within 5 working days. The landlord did not escalate the complaint which delayed the progression of the complaint. This was not in line with the Code.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s February 2025escalation in 4 working days. The Code says landlords must inform residents of extensions and expected response times, which it did on 27 March 2025.Itissued its stage 2 response in line with the Code.
  6. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint at an earlier opportunity was likely of little detriment to the resident who closed her ASB case a week later. We have therefore made an order to apologise, in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right. This is also in line with our compensation guidance which deems an apology as appropriate redress for failures that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

  1. The landlord demonstrated learning in its complaint responses. It recruited more staff to prevent delays. It implemented more frequent tenancy checks. It also implemented a new ASB policy which includes carrying out timely risk assessments and action plans.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord provided clear records of reports and correspondence to enable us to assess its actions and carry out a thorough investigation.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was reasonable. Where it delayed in responding, it addressed this and made attempts to put things right.