Summary: The Housing Ombudsman Service (the HOS) finds maladministration by the Council in respect of its handling of Miss X’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour. The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) finds the Council at fault for failing to consider whether Miss X’s circumstances meant there was reason to believe she was homeless. However, for the reasons set out in the statement, we do not find this fault caused Miss X an injustice. Both Ombudsmen find the Council at fault for a delay in completing a risk assessment. The Ombudsmen have not found the Council at fault for how it conducted its management transfer procedure. The Ombudsmen have made orders and recommendations to remedy the injustice to Miss X and to improve the Council’s services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. Failed to appropriately investigate reports of noise and antisocial behaviour;
2. Failed to properly assess the risk to her and her child, and failed to properly consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue living in her home.
2. Miss X said it was not safe for her to continue living in her home and the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. Miss X would like the Council to provide her with new accommodation.

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If the LGSCO is satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
8. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) 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 HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
9. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Miss X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
13. Section 159(4A) of the Housing Act 1996 says a transfer or exchange of a council tenant from one tenancy to another is not considered an 'allocation'. As such, complaints about how a council considered a management transfer request from one of its tenants, which would see the tenant transfer from one of its properties to another, would generally fall within the HOS’s remit.
14. However, where a management transfer is sought on reasonable preference grounds – for example, where it is alleged the applicant is effectively homeless, because the threat or risk of harm makes it unreasonable for them to continue occupying their home – the LGSCO may be able to consider the complaint.
15. Given the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsmen have jointly considered this aspect of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Statutory Noise nuisance and Antisocial Behaviour

16. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
17. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
18. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. This includes noise nuisance.
19. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
20. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
21. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
22. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Homelessness

23. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
24. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them.

Reasonable preference

25. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Reasonable to continue to occupy

26. The law says a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, considering the circumstances of the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3))
27. There are several provisions relating to whether or not it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation, including:
• Whether continued occupation will lead to domestic abuse or other violence against the applicant or their household.
• Whether the applicant is at risk of harassment if they stay. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 6.24, 6.39, 6.40)

Management transfers

28. Management transfers are a mechanism allowing social housing tenants to move to another social housing property, because their current home has become unsuitable due to exceptional circumstances. Management transfers are discretionary and approved by the landlord, and transfers are not allocated through the housing register. Applicants approved for management transfers are usually afforded high housing priority, as the intent is to promote their wellbeing or protect their safety.

Back to top

What we found

Background

29. Miss X is a tenant of the Council. She lives in a flat in a block. She is disabled and has physical and mental health conditions.
30. Miss X made reports to the Council from around September 2024 that she was suffering excessive noise from her neighbour living in the flat above her. This included noise at unsocial hours which caused distress to her and her young child and caused her child to be late for school.
31. Miss X says the Council asked her to log the noise in diary sheets. She did this and sent it some diary sheets on 18 October 2024. In November 2024, she says a tenancy officer visited her and told her they would investigate and keep her updated.

Key events

32. In early January 2025, Miss X complained to the Council about a lack of communication, despite multiple attempts to contact it about the noise. In late January 2025, she sent more diary sheets.
33. In mid-February 2025, the Council provided a stage one response. It said its investigation of the noise had been delayed due to difficulty engaging with Miss X’s neighbour. It said it had now visited them and discussed the noise. It said it was limited in what it could disclose, but it was seeking to help resolve matters, and would continue to consider its options. It explained it initially aimed to work with residents and help support them to comply with their tenancy conditions. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays.
34. In early April 2025, Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of the complaint process. She reported that her neighbour had made serious threats to her that day. She also said she continued to experience noise, and provided more diary sheets.
35. The Council referred the case to its anti-social behaviour (ASB) team. They agreed to visit Miss X and develop an action plan on her return from travels.
36. The Council visited Miss X on 7 May 2025 to gather information and complete a risk assessment. It assessed the risk as high and offered Miss X and her child temporary accommodation (TA) from 8 May 2025, for an initial period of two weeks. Shortly after this, internal correspondence shows officers suggesting it would be unsafe for Miss X to return home. Officers concluded a management transfer request would be the most effective option to support Miss X.
37. On 13 May 2025, officers made an application on Miss X’s behalf. This application stated:
• The application was made both on medical grounds and due to high-risk ASB. Miss X and her child were then in TA, due to threats and the assessed risk to their safety.
• Miss X had health issues and required assistive aids. The current home was too small, owing to Miss X’s medical needs.
• Miss X could not return to her home. Miss X needed a property that could be adapted for her complex medical needs and addressed their safety concerns.
38. In mid-May 2025, the Council met with the neighbour, discussed the noise and threats, and said it would issue them with formal warnings.
39. The Council’s decision panel considered the application on 27 May 2025. The Council decided not to approve Miss X for a management transfer, noting the prospect of planned mediation and communal support work. The panel instead recommended Miss X pursue a move on medical grounds. The Council subsequently told Miss X it was safe for her to return home, and made commitments to monitor matters. However, Miss X was reluctant to leave the temporary accommodation.
40. In early July 2025, the Council formally confirmed its management transfer decision. It issued the neighbour with formal warnings in respect to their threats to Miss X, and in late August 2025, a noise specialist did a noise transference test. They said there were no structural reasons for excessive noise transfer between flats, there were negligible levels of noise transfer, and the neighbour had taken all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of noise transfer.
41. The Council told Miss X that proportionate ASB interventions had been completed, the risk had decreased to low, and it was now closing the case. Miss X says she subsequently vacated the temporary accommodation against her wishes and returned home in late September 2025.

Findings

Complaint of failure to appropriately investigate reports of noise and anti-social behaviour

42. The Council said in its responses that there were delays in its investigation of Miss X’s reports, due to difficulties engaging with the neighbour. However, the Council provides no evidence for this and its attempts to contact the neighbour, to consider if these were reasonable. The Council’s actions for Miss X’s reports from around September 2024 to early April 2025 are generally unevidenced and unclear. This is not appropriate, as the Council is expected to maintain adequate records of its actions and be able to supply these to the Ombudsmen.
43. The Council explained how it initially aims to work with alleged perpetrators and fully explore options to resolve anti-social behaviour. This is a reasonable approach. It also acknowledged some appropriate learning in its responses for handling of anti-social behaviour by its tenancy and anti-social behaviour teams. However, it is not always clear how it worked with Miss X’s neighbour and considered what options to explore. It is also not clear to what extent it considered and explored mediation, which may have been a reasonable option to explore, before matters escalated in early April 2025.
44. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s reports of noise at points. It noted witnessing shouting at a May 2025 visit and discussed noise with her neighbour the same month. However, the level of consideration and support evident for the reports of noise is limited, and the basis for the decision to do a noise transference test is also unclear.
45. Miss X’s diary sheets report almost daily loud noise, with a high number between 12am and around 5.45am. Such noise would potentially go against the tenancy agreement if frequent and ongoing.
46. The Council would have been expected to show it considered and took effective steps to gain a clear understanding of the specific noise Miss X reported, through use of a noise app and noise monitoring equipment.
47. The noise transference test the Council committed to and then did seems beneficial for considering whether noise during the day is reasonable. However, it seems unhelpful for considering noise of the timing, frequency, volume and impact reported by Miss X.
48. The Council said that it would monitor matters when Miss X returned home from the temporary accommodation, then later said before she returned home that it was closing the case after the noise transference test. The Council could have provided clearer assurances about options it may consider if unsocial noise reports continued. This was not reasonable given the lack of any tests to assess the specific noise reported. This will have left Miss X feeling unsupported.
49. The HOS finds maladministration in how the Council handled Miss X’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. It provides limited evidence for its actions from around September 2024 to early April 2025. It does not show to what extent it considered and explored mediation. It did a noise transference test which did not allow it to reasonably consider the timing and volume of the specific noise Miss X reported. Its poor communication left Miss X distressed and uncertain.

Complaint about management transfer/consideration of risk and housing circumstances

50. In line with our respective jurisdictions, set out in paragraphs 1 and 6, we have considered the Council’s actions from two distinct, though overlapping, perspectives: whether the Council properly conducted its management transfer procedure, and whether the Council considered if Miss X’s housing circumstances provided reason to believe she was already effectively homeless.
51. On 7 April 2025, Miss X told the Council her neighbour had made serious threats against her. In accordance with its policy, the Council should have completed a risk assessment within a maximum of five working days, by 11 April 2025. The Council made initial contact with Miss X on 8 April 2025, but it did not complete a risk assessment until 7 May 2025, around four weeks later. We recognise Miss X was away from around 18 April 2025, which contributed to the delay. However, had the Council completed the risk assessment within the required timescale, this delay would have been avoided. The delay did not affect the outcome of the assessment, with the risk assessed as being high in the period following the reported threats. However, it did cause avoidable uncertainty for Miss X. The LGSCO therefore finds fault in the Council’s delay completing the risk assessment, and the HOS finds service failure.
52. The assessed risk led the Council to provide TA and consider use of its management transfer procedure. The Council’s published allocations scheme does not describe the management transfer procedure in detail. However, the evidence shows, in practice, an officer will submit a management transfer application to a decision panel. The application will set out the circumstances of the case, the identified risks and reasons for the request. The panel will then consider the application and decide whether to approve the transfer, in turn awarding increased housing priority.
53. Paragraph 37 describes the panel’s recorded consideration. The Ombudsmen would be critical of the fact the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s circumstances is not set out in greater depth. However, when taken together with the correspondence that followed and other internal records viewed, we understand the Council decided its efforts to address the reported ASB, along with the passage of time and there being no new incidents, would sufficiently mitigate the risk. This meant Miss X could safely return to her home. The Council would then complete the outstanding actions and would monitor the situation, responding appropriately to any changes.
54. The Ombudsmen recognise Miss X strongly disagreed with the Council’s decision. While recognising this, we have not identified maladministration in how the Council completed its management transfer procedure. This means we cannot question the Council’s decision. It would be open to Miss X to raise new concerns with the Council, and the Ombudsmen would expect the Council to appropriately assess any reported risk and intervene as required.
55. The LGSCO has considered if the Council assessed whether there was reason to believe Miss X was already effectively homeless. This question can arise at the same time as a request for a management transfer, depending on the circumstances. However, while considerations may overlap, the procedures are separable and outcomes are often different. The Council’s published allocations scheme demonstrates this: the Council awards higher housing priority to applicants approved for management transfers than to those whom it owes a homelessness duty.
56. The LGSCO has seen no evidence the Council considered whether Miss X’s circumstances meant there was reason to believe she was already effectively homeless, in line with the considerations set out in the Code, explained in paragraphs 24 and 25. We find the Council at fault for this lack of distinct consideration.
57. However, we cannot say the outcome would have been different, had the Council properly considered the question. The Council would only likely have found there was reason to believe Miss X was homeless if it believed the risk posed to Miss X meant she could no longer safely occupy the property. Given the Council believed it could acceptably mitigate this risk, it is unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, it would have decided it had reason to believe Miss X was homeless. We cannot therefore say this caused Miss X an injustice.
58. However, this fault could cause injustice to others in future, if not addressed.

Back to top

Action required

HOS recommendations and orders

59. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the noise and anti-social behaviour.
• Take steps to install noise monitoring equipment in Miss X’s property for an appropriate period.
60. Within eight weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should then review the noise recordings and consider if these are compliant with any relevant tenancy conditions and policies. It should then write to Miss X and the Housing Ombudsman Service with the outcome, an action plan for any follow up actions and its communication plan, if applicable.
61. The Council should provide the Housing Ombudsman Service with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

LGSCO recommended action

62. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Miss X for the injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Update its management transfer procedure to ensure the Council considers whether the Council owes a parallel homelessness duty, in cases where the Council decides the applicant can no longer reasonably occupy their home, as part of its consideration.
63. The Council should provide the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. We have completed our investigation with findings of maladministration (fault). The orders and recommendations made provide a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman