Progress Housing Association Limited — case 202411374

Decision Case ID 202411374 Decision type Investigation Landlord Progress Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Date 28 January 2026 Background 1. The resident has been an assured tenant, following a starter tenancy, of the 1-bedroom flat since September 2023. He says he has reported ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour since 19 November 2023. What the complaint is about 2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of ASB Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination) 3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. 4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons 5. While the landlord took the resident’s ASB reports seriously, it did not agree a clear plan of action. This resulted in a reactive approach. 6. The landlord largely dealt with the complaint in line with its complaint handling policy and our complaint handling code (the Code), but failed to address all complaint points.

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 meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 25 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £300 made up of: £250 for its ASB handling failures £50 for its complaint handling failures. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures. No later than 25 February 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure a competent surveyor assesses the property and the neighbour’s property.

It must provide us and the resident with a written report of the survey that sets out: whether soundproofing improvements could reduce noise transfer whether it is responsible / willing to carry out any improvements together with reasons if it is not responsible / willing the likely timescales to start and finish the improvements. No later than 25 February 2026 4 Take specific action The landlord must take all reasonable steps to complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident, if it has not done so already.

The action plan must explain how the landlord intends to deal with the ongoing reports of ASB. No later than 25 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 17 June 2024 The resident complained about his reports of ASB since November 2023. He said the landlord did not tell him it was already investigating reports of ASB before he signed the tenancy agreement. He asked why the landlord was not enforcing the tenancy conditions. 18 July 2024 The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said: it followed procedure and worked with the neighbour to reduce noise nuisance it had re-located the neighbour’s ‘lifeline’ (emergency alert) alarm to another part of the property to minimise disturbance the resident had agreed to close the ASB case as there were no complaints between 14 March and 1 May 2024 the landlord re–opened the case on 14 June 2024 after the resident reported further incidents which it acted on.

20 July 2024 The resident escalated his complaint. He: disputed that the landlord had worked with the neighbour reported further incidents of ASB, including one involving his neighbour’s visitor provided supporting statements from other residents about earlier incidents involving the visitor. asked for a written apology and assurance that the ASB would stop during unsociable hours. 22 August 2024 The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: it had implemented several measures to reduce noise levels and asked the neighbour to wear headphones while listening to her television and music it was exploring soundproofing measures it had re-opened the ASB case the resident had declined its option of moving to another property but it would keep the option open it agreed to contact the resident in 4 weeks to see if the noise had reduced.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ASB. He recently declined the landlord’s offer of another property as it was smaller than the property and more expensive. He feels the landlord should ask his neighbour to move instead and give her a final warning. He wants to enjoy the property and not have to wear industrial ear plugs to sleep. 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Maladministration 7. It is not our role to establish the validity of the resident’s ASB reports. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of them and decide if it acted in line with relevant policies and procedures. We consider if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to some person’. It provides examples of such including: Aggressive and/or threatening behaviour or language. Intimidation and/or harassment. Noise nuisance such as shouting, banging/slamming doors, loud music. 8. The policy says normal household noise will not constitute ASB including ordinary conversations heard through walls or reasonable television or radio noise. 9. Records do not show when the resident first reported ASB in the form of noise nuisance.

However, noise diary sheets document disturbances on 16 days between 19 November 2023 and 5 January 2024. The resident believed they were mostly due to the neighbour activating her lifeline alarm and there were also records of loud television noise. The recorded times of incidents ranged between 23:45 and 08:36. 10. The landlord provided a noise application (to record the noises) at some point and the diary sheets indicate some incidents were recorded. It opened an ASB case on 5 January 2024 and told the resident it planned to relocate the lifeline alarm box.

It appears it also contacted the council’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) and told the resident they would contact him. 11. This was appropriate and shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will look to resolve issues as quickly as possible. Re-positioning the lifeline alarm may have resolved most of the reported noise nuisance. Further, the landlord’s options were limited, unless it could satisfy itself that the neighbour was activating the alarm without needing assistance.

12. However, the landlord’s ASB policy also says it will agree realistic action plans and keep residents informed throughout their case. We have not seen that the landlord agreed any tangible plan of action with the resident at that time. This was a failure. It meant the landlord’s actions thereafter were reactive and mostly prompted by the resident continuing to report ASB. This caused time and trouble to the resident. It resulted in unnecessary contact as he had no expectation of how the landlord intended to deal with ASB.

13. Further, we have not seen that the landlord carried out a risk assessment. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which requires landlords to assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. The resident continued to record noise nuisance in the diary sheets and via the noise application and reported incidents directly to the landlord. He said the issue was affecting his blood pressure and his ability to go out with his family.

14. The landlord’s analysis of a noise recording (loud music) on 14 January 2024 found it to be ASB, rather than household noise. It visited the resident on 25 January 2024. It told him the lifeline provider found the alarm was easily activated, and it had replaced part of the system to prevent accidental activation. The landlord’s complaint responses reference that it also moved the lifeline alarm, but we have not seen evidence of this or when this happened. 15. It appears the landlord also spoke with the neighbour as it told the resident she had agreed to wear headphones (while watching television).

It reiterated its intention to work with the EHT when they made contact. This was appropriate. Our ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report of July 2025 says working with other agencies is often the key to resolving ASB. If the EHT finds noise is a statutory nuisance, they can serve an abatement notice and take criminal action if the perpetrator does not comply. 16. Some of the landlord’s actions were successful. The resident later reported that the lifeline alarm incidents had reduced.

However, he continued to be disturbed by loud television noise. The noise application recorded a loud voice on 29 January 2024 that could be heard in the resident’s bedroom for 20 minutes at 08.37 with an intensity of 10. 17. It is positive the landlord continued to act on these reports and monitored the situation. The resident also reported a ‘buzzing noise’ but the landlord was unable to identify the source. An inspection found no defects to any elements, fittings or appliances.

18. A record of 30 January 2024 noted the landlord had engaged with the neighbour’s family. We are unable to disclose everything it discussed due to General Data Protection Regulation rules. However, the neighbour gave a reasonable explanation for television noise during the night. The landlord noted it gave advice to all parties and contacted the EHT. It documented that the resident’s bedroom was next to the neighbour’s front room and the walls were thin. 19. However, noise analysis identified incidents of ASB at 20:44 on 3 February 2024 (banging on the wall for 1 hour and 5 minutes) and 05:25 on 16 February 2024 (intense noise for 4 hours possibly due to the television).

While the landlord’s ASB policy says it can issue verbal or written warnings and use Acceptable Behaviour Contracts to agree future conduct, we have not seen evidence it did so at this point. 20. It is reasonable to expect the landlord would have considered such action, given its previous attempts to resolve the situation had not worked and ASB continued. It was now 3 months since the resident reported disturbed sleep. While some instances were not anti-social in nature, some were.

The tenancy agreement said residents should not make excessive noise. We understand why the resident felt the landlord should have made more effort to enforce this condition with the neighbour. 21. Instead, the landlord appears to have relied on the EHT to progress the issue. Our ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report of July 2025 also says that, while multi-agency cooperation is encouraged, landlords should not become too dependent on other agencies for outcomes. They still need to fulfil their own management responsibilities.

The landlord’s failure to consider all the options available to it to deal with ASB at that time was another failure in service. 22. The EHT installed noise recording equipment for 1 week on 13 March 2024. However, the resident called the landlord on 14 March 2024 and said he believed the neighbour was alerted to the installation (we have not seen evidence of this). He said noise had reduced but he was sleeping in his front room. On 20 March 2024, he reported having the quietest week since moving in.

He said the EHT told him they intended to write to all the residents to tell them they were monitoring the block. 23. The landlord closed the case on 1 May 2024 after the resident reported all noise had stopped. It invited him to report any further instances. This was appropriate. 24. However, on 11 June 2024 the resident reported that the neighbour’s visitor called at his property and intimidated him. He followed this up on 13 June 2024 with reports of further noise nuisance from the neighbour during the early hours of the morning.

He appreciated what the landlord had previously done but the noise showed no sign of stopping. 25. The landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour and her visitor. While there is a record it spoke with the neighbour’s visitor, she gave a different account of events. She said she had attended the resident’s property to apologise for noise the previous night. We understand the difficulties faced by landlords when there are conflicting accounts without any independent evidence. 26.

However, the resident had provided supporting statements about the behaviour of the visitor. We have not seen that the landlord acted on these other than by telling the visitor not to interact with other residents. Nor have we seen that it carried out a risk assessment or agreed an action plan as to how it would deal with reported ASB from the visitor. This was another failure in service. We understand why the resident felt his reports were ignored. The tenancy agreement said household visitors should not use abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

The landlord should have made more effort to investigate the resident’s reports of such. 27. The resident continued to report ASB. On 11 July 2024 he said the neighbour activated her lifeline alarm at 01:08 and was talking on the phone at 01:20. He also reported her visitor slammed the door so hard the building shook. Although the landlord opened an ASB case on 1 August 2024, again we have not seen a record of any agreed plan of action. However, internal emails suggest it was considering whether noise insulation was appropriate for the neighbour’s flat and issuing a formal warning regarding the behaviour of her visitor.

28. We understand why the landlord offered the resident another property on 20 August 2024 and that this may have resolved the situation. Equally, we understand the resident’s response that the neighbour should be moved. Records suggest the landlord was also exploring the possibility of mediation and whether there were any other witnesses to incidents involving the visitor as the resident had provided details. This was appropriate and in line with the ASB policy although we have not seen whether this was progressed.

29. The resident changed his position shortly after as the noise nuisance continued. He asked to move but said he wanted to stay within the block as he had made friends. While the landlord told the resident it issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 22 August 2024, it has been unable to provide evidence of this. 30. It is positive that the landlord agreed to explore sound proofing improvements. Our spotlight report on noise complaints says actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance reports.

However, the landlord has been unable to evidence that it properly considered potential sound proofing improvements. We cannot disclose its justification for not progressing it but it is not reasonable. It would not have prevented sound proofing improvements going ahead. 31. There is also no record that the landlord told the resident it was no longer considering soundproofing as a viable solution. This was another failure in service which, when combined with the others, amounts to maladministration.

The landlord has acknowledged the walls are thin and there were a number of high intensity noises that transferred to the property at unsociable hours. We therefore order the landlord to consider if sound proofing improvements are appropriate now. 32. While the landlord agreed to contact the resident 4 weeks after the stage 2 to see if the noise had reduced, this again was reactive. It missed a further opportunity to agree a detailed action plan which would have reassured the resident it was taking appropriate action and managed his expectations as to the options available.

It also missed an opportunity to apologise for the failings we have identified in this report. Therefore, it has not put things rights in line with our dispute resolution principles. 33. We order the landlord to apologise for these failures and pay the resident £250. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the absence of a clear action plan and the uncertainty as to whether soundproofing measures are appropriate. The lack of clarity affected the resident’s ability to make an informed decision as to whether he should accept a new property.

This is in line with our remedies guidance for when landlords have not acknowledged failures that adversely affected the resident and made no attempt to put things right. 34. We cannot assess how the landlord managed ongoing reports of ASB after the stage 2 response. This is because it needs the opportunity to address dissatisfaction at both stages of the complaint process first. However, it has continued to act and gave the neighbour a verbal warning on 8 October 2024 about historical complaints of ASB.

Despite this, the resident says ASB continues. 35. As we have not seen evidence of an agreed action plan and risk assessment, we order the landlord to complete this now. This is to ensure the resident has a tangible plan of how the landlord intends to deal with the ongoing reports of ASB. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure 36. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It then aims to respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.

37. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within its policy time limit. It asked if it could extend the time to reply on 3 July 2024 but the resident did not agree. The landlord extended the timeframe and told the resident to expect a response by 18 July 2024. The Code says landlords can extend the stage 1 time limit by 10 working days. The landlord issued the stage 1 response 19 working days after acknowledging it, in line with its complaint policy and the Code. 38.

The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy time limit. However, it failed to address the resident’s complaint that it did not tell him about previous incidents of ASB before he signed the tenancy agreement. While the landlord was under no legal obligation to disclose previous incidents of ASB, it did not confirm this. Therefore, the resident spent unnecessary time and trouble chasing an answer to this question. 39. This was a service failure. We order the landlord to apologise for this and pay the resident £50.

This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that caused time and trouble and delayed getting matters resolved but did not significantly affect the overall outcome. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) 40. The landlord’s records were heavily redacted and it was not always clear which party they referred to. While we were able to make a robust decision, the lack of records made it difficult to assess whether its actions were appropriate.

Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened. They should clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision not to act. Communication 41. The landlord regularly contacted the resident to find out if ASB continued and was responsive to his contacts. However, some could have been avoided if there was a clear plan of action.