Ashford Borough Council — case 202448414

Decision Case ID 202448414 Decision type Investigation Landlord Ashford Borough Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 17 June 2026 Background The resident reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour to her landlord. Her representative complained to the landlord in May 2024 on her behalf. We will refer to the representative as the resident in this report. What the complaint is about The landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Reports of repairs. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs is outside of our jurisdiction. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s response to reports of ASB At stage 1 and 2 the landlord said it did not consider the resident’s reports to be ASB.

The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s initial concerns of ASB, but it did not offer any compensation to try and put things right. The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord did not comply with its policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. 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 provided by a manager 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 July 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB.

The landlord must pay the resident directly and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 15 July 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 15 May 2024 The resident complained to the landlord. She said it responded poorly to her reports of ASB and communicated ineffectively with her. She also said it responded to her repairs poorly. 5 June 2024 The landlord replied at stage 1. It said it had visited the resident and would provide her with noise recording equipment.

It asked her to report ASB via its online reporting tool but said she could also raise concerns by email. It said it could use a range of tools to address ASB such as visits, mediation and working with the police. The landlord said it had referred the case to mediation and was waiting on the neighbour’s response. It said it would arrange for the fitting of carpet and underlay in her neighbour’s hallway to help with noise transference. It apologised for not responding to the resident on 2 occasions and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.

2 April 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord continued to manage her reports of ASB unsatisfactorily. 29 April 2025 The landlord replied at stage 2 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it had been in regular contact with her about her reports. It said her reports of disturbances and the noise recordings do not meet the threshold for ASB. However, it said it understands the impact it is having on the resident. The landlord said it offered the resident a new property via a managed move due to the negative impact the situation was having on her health.

It also said it made a mental health safeguarding referral for her. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said she had moved to a new property and asked the landlord to pay any compensation to a charity. 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 response to the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Service failure On 12 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she had concerns about reporting incidents of ASB due to her limited online technical skills. She said she felt worried about reporting ASB in case her neighbourmade counter claims. She said her neighbour upstairs made noise in the middle of the night, which disrupts her sleep. On 25 April 2024, the resident chased the landlord and said it had not responded to her queries.

On 15 May 2024, the resident complained and said the landlord had responded poorly to her reports of ASB. She also said it had failed to respond to her, and she was concerned about reporting ASB through its online system. The landlord replied at stage 1 and said it considered the resident’s reports as everyday living noise. It told the resident how to report incidents and said she could report ASB via email. It also provided information on actions it could take to tackle ASB.

The landlord said it referred the resident and her neighbour to mediation. It apologised for not responding to her previous reports. Its ASB policy says it will encourage residents to report ASB and make the process accessible. It said it discussed installing soundproofing in the resident’s property but decided not to proceed due to the level of disruption it would cause. At stage 1, the landlord said the resident’s reports of noise did not amount to ASB. It said it would provide equipment to record the noise and offered her an alternative for reporting incidents.

It apologised for not responding to her earlier reports of ASB. It upheld the resident’s complaint for the disturbances and its lack of response prior to the complaint. However, it did not offer any compensation to try and put things right for her. The resident escalated her complaint and said the landlord continued to respond poorly to her reports of ASB. It did not uphold her complaint at stage 2. It said it had kept in regular contact with her and the reports of noise did not present as ASB.

However, the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident’s health, and it offered her an alternative property. Our role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In summary, the landlord said at stage 1 and 2 it did not consider the residents reports to be ASB. It offered her a resolution focussed approach and provided her with noise recording equipment and supported her with alternative ways to report incidents.

It made a safeguarding referral for her. It offered mediation between her and her neighbour and arranged for carpet and underlay in the neighbour’s property to help reduce noise transference. The landlord arranged for the resident to move to a new property because it recognised the effect the noise was having on her. These were reasonable actions. The landlord recognised it had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns prior to her raising a complaint, however, it did not offer any compensation to try and put things right.

Also, although it said the reported noise did not amount to ASB, it offeredinterventions in line with its ASB policy. This may have caused confusion to the resident. We have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. We ordered it to apologise and pay her £100 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance where a landlord has made some attempts to put things right but has not gone far enough. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs Finding Outside jurisdiction We are not free to investigate all complaints referred to us.

What we can and cannot consider is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Scheme says we can only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident did not escalate the issue around the landlord’s response to repairs, and the landlord did not respond to this issue at stage 2. This means we have no power to investigate this part of the complaint. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024).

The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage 1 or 2. It sent its stage 1 reply around 13 working days after it received the complaint, and it did not acknowledge the delay. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalated complaint. It sent its stage 2 reply around 18 working days after the resident escalated her complaint, which was within its policy time.

In summary, although the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or the delay, it was a short delay which did not impact the resident. We have found service failure in its response to the resident’s complaint and have ordered the landlord to apologise to her. Learning The landlord should ensure it complies with its complaint’s policy. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports of ASB. It should improve its record keeping, particularly by tracking outstanding actions and confirming it has provided responses to residents.

Communication The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and empathetic. The landlord should improve its communication around reports of ASB. It should provide clarity to residents when it does not class reports as ASB, but it offers solutions from its ASB policy.