Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202215687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215687

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

24 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s 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 Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour.

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy was assigned to the resident, by way of mutual exchange, on 28 August 2017. The landlord has the following vulnerabilities listed for the resident: osteoarthritis in hands, wrists and legs, high blood pressure and breast cancer.
The resident had been reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property as early as October 2020. The resident continued to report the same noise nuisance by the same neighbour throughout 2021, 2022 and 2023.
On 7 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that following every email she had sent the landlord, it said it would be in touch within 10 working days, but in over 2 years only once had anyone contacted her. The resident asked when someone was going to contact her about the noise from the neighbouring property, which she described as ‘horrendous.’
On 10 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that they had been reporting their neighbour for ‘ages’ and the problem was getting worse. The resident said that she had sent ‘so many emails’ and ‘nothing had changed.’ The resident said that this was affecting her mental health as it occurred ‘all day and late at night.’
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024 in which it:
1. Acknowledged that the resident had been reporting noise nuisance by their neighbour for over 3 years and said that it was ‘sincerely’ sorry for the distress this had caused.
2. Noted that the neighbour had been granted permission to install laminate flooring in 2019. The landlord said it could not tell the resident why it had agreed to this but confirmed that if any complaints were received, the neighbour would be asked to change their flooring.
3. Said that since receiving the resident’s reports, it had offered mediation, which was declined, and had advised the neighbour that the flooring needed to be removed.
4. Said that in November 2023, the neighbour confirmed they would be changing the flooring. However, due to ‘personal circumstances’ there had been delays in them doing so. The landlord said it was in ‘active communication’ with the neighbour, to ensure this was progressed. It was also arranging an inspection to ensure the flooring was removed and would be re-iterating to the neighbour the importance of being mindful of their behaviour.
5. Once it had carried out an inspection of the neighbour’s flat, it would contact the resident to advise her of the progress being made.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged it was a difficult situation and had been working with the neighbour. However, there were personal circumstances relating to that neighbour that it had had to take into account. It went on to say:
1. It had visited the neighbour, it had asked for the flooring to be removed and offered mediation, which was declined.
2. It would arrange to visit the neighbour again within the next 2 weeks to discuss the issues and encourage mediation. Although noise made by children was not considered a statutory nuisance or anti-social behaviour, it would still talk to the neighbour about trying to minimise noise transference.
3. It would be opening a resolutions case to ensure that the resident’s case was closely monitored and for the resident to have a single point of contact who would update her.
4. It was sorry this did not happen sooner and offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay.
On 16 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had visited the neighbour the previous day. The landlord said they had discussed items left in the communal area with the neighbour but it was not possible to gain access to inspect the flooring. The landlord said it was still working to find a resolution and to address all the points she had raised.
Between August and December 2024, the resident continued to report noise nuisance by the neighbour to the landlord. In her reports, the resident made reference to recovering from chemotherapy.
In an internal email of 19 December 2024, the landlord’s housing services manager advised that they had visited the neighbour again on 27 November 2024. The housing services manager said they had again been unable to gain access to the property but could confirm that the neighbour had not removed their laminated flooring or replaced it with carpets. The housing services manager said another letter would need to be sent to the neighbour regarding the removal of the flooring.
As of March 2025, the flooring in the neighbours property had not been replaced and the noise nuisance for the resident continued.
In an internal email of 18 March 2025, the landlord said the best option would be to re–house the resident. The landlord noted that there would be an internal meeting on 21 March 2025 to discuss options for finding the resident another property. It noted that this process could take time, due to the limited number of properties it had, but the resident would be on its priority list for rehousing.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.

Relevant policies and agreements

The landlord’s ASB policy defines antisocial behaviour as “acting in a manner that causes or has the ability to cause nuisance, annoyance, disturbance or harassment to neighbours, other people living with or visiting the resident.”
The policy also notes what actions it does not consider to be ASB. This includes “sounds of normal day to day living.” However, it also states that ‘if the behaviour is persistent and deliberate and is found to be having a harmful impact on a person or they are at risk or potentially at risk then (it) will investigate the matter, as ASB in line with this policy.’
Flooring, specifically the installation of hardwood or laminate flooring, can be problematic, particularly in cases where the flooring installation occurred in the flat above, as in this case.
For existing tenancy agreements where, hard flooring is only permitted with permission and/or with conditions, the landlord would be expected to review and enforce the relevant clauses should the conditions under which it granted permission be breached.
In this case the landlord had granted permission for the neighbour to install laminate flooring. The reason for it doing so is not the subject of this complaint, but rather, its actions when it had identified that the conditions in its agreement for the flooring to be installed were not being complied with.

Assessment

It is evident that the resident had been raising concerns with the landlord about noise nuisance by her neighbour since October 2020. However, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
As the resident’s formal complaint was logged on 10 January 2024, we would not normally be able to consider matters prior to January 2023, this being 12 months prior to the complaint being made. However, in this instance, our investigation will commence from 7 October 2022. This is because it is evident that when the resident emailed the landlord on that date it was to complain specifically about its response to her reports of noise from her neighbour’s property. In her email the resident complained that following every email she had sent the landlord, it said it would be in touch within 10 working days, but in over 2 years only once had anyone contacted her. She also asked when someone was going to contact her about the noise from the neighbouring property, which she described as ‘horrendous’.
The landlord’s response to this email was to advise the resident that concerns about ‘neighbourhood disputes and anti-social behaviour (ASB)’ were not classified as a formal complaint. This was not an appropriate response given that the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the ‘standard of service, actions or lack of action’ by the landlord. As such, the landlord should have logged the resident’s email of 7 October 2022 as a formal complaint but failed to do so. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 for this failure.
In the 22 months between 7 October 2022 and the landlord’s final response of 9 August 2024, the resident made multiple reports of noise disturbance by their neighbour. These reports included, but were not limited to:
1. On 19 October 2022 that there was ‘still unacceptable noise’ and that her partner had lost his job as he had been woken at an unacceptable time and had fallen asleep at work.
2. The resident reporting on 23 January 2023 that it was 12am and there had been jumping around upstairs since 4pm the previous day. The resident advised the landlord that she could ‘not take much more of this.’
3. 3 reports of noise from her neighbours property on 15 February 2023.
4. The resident contacting the landlord on 17 March 2023, to ask for feedback following her ‘3 years’ of reports of noise from her neighbours property, which she said was now louder.
5. The resident reporting on 13 April 2023, that, over the last 5 days, she had been woken at 6am by the sound of jumping above her bedroom ceiling. The resident said if the landlord had spoken to the neighbour, it was not working. The resident said that the situation was ‘so depressing’ and that she had called 2 weeks previously to speak to her housing services manager but they did not call her back.
6. 3 reports made by the resident in June 2023 of ‘the noise being so bad’, another weekend of constant noise’, 7 days a week early morning till late at night’ and that ‘this is a nightmare’.
7. In July 2023, the resident making 2 further reports of noise from her neighbour’s property. The resident said that she could ‘not take much more’ and so was ‘going away to stay with family for a few days.’ The resident also said that she was losing money as she was self-employed and ‘could not take much more of this.’
8. On 2 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord on 6 occasions to report noise disturbance from the neighbours property.
9. On 21 February 2024, the resident reporting that the noise disturbance was ongoing.
10. On 27 March 2024, the resident reporting that ‘the noise is awful’, ‘constant’ and that she ‘could not live like this’.
11. On 9 May 2024, the resident again reported ‘stamping and loud music that (made) the property vibrate’ and that the neighbour still had the laminate flooring.
12. On 21 June 2024, the resident reported that ‘since 3.20am (that) morning there (had) been constant banging’. The resident said around 6am there had been ‘the usual running jumping and banging’ and then ‘around 7.30am loud music, adding to the rest of the noise’.
In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord:
1. Sent warning letters to the neighbour on 29 November 2022, 18 and 23 January 2023, 13 and 15 February 2023, 10 March 2023, 17 and 23 May 2023, and 2 and 4 October 2023, about reports of ‘constant loud noises’ coming from their property. The neighbour was asked to look at options to reduce the level of noise, such as putting down a rug or carpets. The landlord also reminded the neighbour of their tenancy terms and conditions with regards to ‘hardwood/laminate’ flooring. It suggested the neighbour may have to remove their flooring.
2. Wrote to the neighbour, and the resident, on 14 June 2023 to propose mediation. This was initially agreed to by both parties and referred to a 3rd party mediation company but was then declined by the neighbour.
3. Wrote to the neighbour on 4 October 2023, to remind them of the conditions under which they had been given permission for the flooring to be installed. These were that the flooring was installed with quality sound proofing, and that if the landlord were to receive complaints regarding noise issues the flooring was to be removed.
  1. The landlord said that it had now found that the flooring was not provided with suitable sound proofing and was causing noise nuisance for neighbouring properties.
  2. The neighbour was asked to remove the flooring and replace it with carpet. This was to be done by 25 October 2023. The following day the neighbour emailed the landlord to confirm that they intended to replace the flooring. The landlord did not follow this up with an inspection to ensure the flooring had been replaced.
  3. It is evident that the flooring had not been removed by 9 May 2024, 7 months later, as the landlord wrote to the neighbour about this on that day. The neighbour was also warned about the risk to their tenancy should this issue not be resolved. However, as with the previous warning letters, nothing happened.
4. On 21 February 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it would be reaching out to the neighbour to invite them into the office for a face-to-face meeting. The landlord said that this was to make the neighbour aware that if there were no changes in their behaviour it would be escalating this further for enforcement action. However, there is no evidence of any such meeting taking place, nor of any escalation, and the noise nuisance continued.
In general, the landlord acted in line with its policy and procedures by contacting the neighbour to issue warning notices about the noise. It also attempted to arrange mediation and a meeting with the neighbour to discuss the issues raised. It advised the neighbour of the terms under which it had agreed to them installing laminate flooring, how these had been breached and that the flooring would need to be replaced. However, it repeatedly failed to take any meaningful action, apart from simply sending further warnings, when its warning letters, instructions and requests were not followed by the neighbour.
Whilst the landlord contacted the neighbour following the resident’s reports, it repeatedly failed to provide the resident herself with updates. Between 7 October 2022 and 5 May 2023, the only evidence we have seen of the landlord attempting to contact the resident is a call note on 5 May 2023 in which the landlord said it had tried to call but received no reply. This was despite:
1. The resident contacting the landlord on 1 December 2022, asking why ‘nobody’ was getting back to her about her neighbours.
2. An email from the resident on 17 March 2023, saying she was still waiting for feedback following her reports.
3. A note being added to the casefile on 23 March 2023 asking that the housing services manager call the resident.
4. An email from the resident on 13 April 2023, saying that she had been told she would be receiving a call following her contact of 2 weeks previously but she had heard nothing.
The resident received no further contact from the landlord until 14 June 2023, when it wrote to her to put forward the option of mediation.
The lack of any regular contact by the landlord, despite the resident repeatedly chasing it for updates, was a further failure. This is because even when there is no progress to report, an update to that effect should be sent to the resident to reassure her she had not been forgotten.
Again, following the resident’s 6 emails on 2 October 2023, whilst the landlord did contact the neighbour, it failed to contact the resident.
Given the lack of contact by the landlord in response to her reports, together with it continually warning the neighbour but taking no meaningful action, it is understandable that the resident would feel the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and that she was reporting incidents for no purpose or outcome.
The complaints process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the resident’s reports, to put any failures right, to recognise the detriment any failures caused the resident and to learn from the outcomes. However, it failed to do so.
It is acknowledged that the landlord recognised that it was a difficult situation and that there were some personal circumstances relating to that neighbour that it had had to take into account. However it failed to recognise that despite the length of time the resident had been raising concerns about the noise from her neighbour, the proposed meetings with the neighbour and the multiple warning letters sent to them regarding their flooring, no decisive action had been taken.
It also did not acknowledge its failure to communicate key updates and/or maintain regular contact with the resident, despite her repeated emails asking that someone contact her.
The landlord also said that it had visited the neighbour. However, we have seen no evidence of it having done so at the time of its final response. Whilst it is evident that the landlord had attempted, on multiple occasions dating back to 13 February 2023, to arrange a meeting with the neighbour, there is no evidence of any meeting taking place prior to the landlord’s final response.
The only evidence we have seen of a meeting taking place is on 14 August 2024, 3 working days after the final response was issued. It also appears from the landlord’s records that this visit did not include entering the property to inspect the flooring, as it only refers to a discussion with the neighbours partner about items being left in the communal area.
Whilst the failings identified in this report may not have changed the overall outcome, they did result in prolonged and unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. They also resulted in her feeling that her concerns had not been taken seriously, that the landlord was not doing anything to address those concerns and that it had not treated her fairly.
It is our view that the £100 offered by the landlord falls well below an amount that would provide reasonable redress and as such a finding of maladministration has been made.
In order to make things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £550 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to her as a result of these failures. This figure includes £50 for its failure to recognise the resident’s email of 7 October 2022 as a formal complaint and the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. This figure is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there has been maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.
The landlord has also been ordered to consider what learning it can take from this case. This is to include what steps it can take to ensure that going forward its staff members are both clear and confident about what further action they can take when their warning letters, instructions and requests are not followed by an alleged perpetrator. The landlord is also to consider what learning it can take from this case to ensure that going forward it provides residents with regular, clear, and accurate communication.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £50 for its failure to correctly identify the resident’s email of 7 October 2022 as a formal complaint.
  2. £500 for the failures with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour. This amount includes the £100 previously offered by the landlord if this has not already been paid.
3. Consider what learning it can take from this case. This is to include what steps it can take to ensure that going forward its staff members are both clear and confident about what further action they can take when their warning letters, instructions and requests are not followed by an alleged perpetrator. The landlord is also to consider what learning it can take from this case to ensure that going forward it provides residents with regular, clear, and accurate communication.
4. Confirm compliance with the above orders.