A VULNERABLE young man is facing eviction on September 1.
Following a series of noise complaints, which his family claims are unfounded, he is just weeks away from losing his home.
Oliver, 22, lives alone in a flat managed by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH).
Following a series of complaints made by a neighbouring tenant, he has been given notice to leave, despite the lack of any audio evidence to back up their claims.
“The tenant hasn’t submitted any recorded proof of noise, yet MTVH believes them rather than us,” said Oliver’s mum, Ruth.
Oliver is a young man with Asperger’s syndrome, who suffers from anxiety, and panic attacks.
He’s also being assessed for ADHD and struggles with low mood and sleep issues.
Despite this, with some basic prompts and community support, he has been managing well.
But stress and fear caused by the ongoing complaints have left him increasingly anxious and unsure of his future.
Initially, Wokingham Borough Council housed him in hotels.
Then came a temporary house-share – isolated and far from home.
When he was finally offered a flat managed by MTVH, closer to family, it felt like a lifeline, says his family.
But within days noise complaints began.
“There’s no insulation and every wall is hollow,” said Ruth.
“Oliver likes to game, so I worried he might have been shouting when winning or losing.
“I had a firm chat with him, and apologised to the neighbour.”
The family then went to considerable lengths to address concerns:
With Oliver’s permission, they installed a camera in his living room, and a visual noise meter to help him monitor and regulate his volume.
They sound-proofed the flat with carpet, installed cupboard door pads, and repositioned furniture, but still the complaints continued.
Then the housing association recommended putting a second camera in Oliver’s bedroom.
“It’s an outrageous suggestion,” said his mum.
“He doesn’t play games in there, and it’s a clear invasion of privacy.
“The safeguarding team at Wokingham Borough Council told us on no account to agree to this.”
Meanwhile, the tenant who had made the initial complaints was seen on CCTV camera to be frequently knocking on Oliver’s door, triggering concern from social workers.
Oliver was advised not to answer.
“This tenant has made it clear they don’t like Oliver,” said Ruth.
“Sometimes they said he was screaming and shouting when he wasn’t even there.”
Ruth tried to compare the neighbour’s complaints with the family’s own footage, but MTVH only shared encrypted files, and only after numerous requests.
“The delays were very unhelpful,” Ruth said.
“The living room camera overwrites data, and every day footage was disappearing.”
Even a noise test, conducted by MTVH officers, involving trying to replicate loud activity in Oliver’s flat, resulted in virtually no noise detected below.
Then came what Ruth describes as a “devastating ordeal”, an online ASB (Anti-Social Behaviour) Perpetrator Interview conducted by MTVH.
“It was horrific, and even the name of the meeting sounded like a decision had already been made,” she said.
And the family was shocked when a social worker, arriving just 20 minutes late, was denied access to the meeting.
Soon afterwards, MTVH issued a formal Investigation Outcome and Tenancy Warning.
Even as the housing association admitted the family’s footage showed ‘no trace of noise’ they said that complaints from three individuals— who Ruth believes to be the original tenant, their relative, and a friend—were enough to conclude that anti-social behaviour had occurred.
Their letter stated: ‘It would be wise to place [a] device in your bedroom… the only way to prove your innocence in this matter and disprove the allegations made against you.’
“We’ve been pressured several times to put a camera in his bedroom,” said Ruth.
“But it’s not right, and we’re just not doing it.”
Two months later Oliver was served with a Section 21 Notice to leave his flat.
“Change is really difficult for Oliver, and he will be devastated,” said Ruth.
MTVH said: “The action we are now taking is the result of persistent anti-social behaviour which has had a profound impact on the lives of those affected over a prolonged period of time, and follows a full and thorough investigation.
“Our investigation has found clear evidence of multiple, recurring instances of serious anti-social behaviour including regular noise nuisance in the early hours of the morning.
“The action we are now taking has not been taken lightly, but all other efforts of resolution have been exhausted, and we believe it to be necessary and proportionate.
“While audio monitoring can be a legitimate part of investigating reports of anti-social behaviour, under no circumstances would we ever require audio monitoring equipment to be installed in residents’ homes, especially not in a private area such as a bedroom.”
Yet Wokingham.Today has had sight of evidence that MTVH has, more than once, advised Oliver to install a camera in his bedroom.
Ruth asks: “Why was Oliver explicitly told that placing a device in his bedroom was the only way to prove his innocence?”
“Shouldn’t the burden of proof lie with the accuser?
“Why are written complaints being treated as irrefutable evidence, when no corroborating audio has ever been found?
“And if noises were loud enough to be disturbing, wouldn’t they be captured by the living room camera?
“Why ask for a bedroom device at all?”
Ruth says the family feels feel betrayed by a system that promised care but delivered suspicion and silence.
She says the family’s efforts have been meticulous, respectful, and focused on resolution, but that they’ve been met with indifference and inflexibility.
“It all feels one-sided and discriminative,” said Ruth.
“We need help, to make sure that MTVH is accountable, and that this never happens to anyone like our son again.”
The family says they are desperately seeking legal support, and are calling for public backing.
“The actions taken against Oliver are not just unfair—they are deeply wrong, especially for someone so vulnerable,” said Ruth.
“Oliver deserves not just a home—but dignity, justice, and a voice.”
Wokingham Borough Council Adult Social Care and its safeguarding team are providing continued support to Oliver.
The council was invited to comment but said that it does not report on individual cases.
Names have been changed to protect the anonymity of the individuals involved.
Anyone able to offer legal assistance is asked to contact the family, via: news@wokingham.today.
