The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202438721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438721

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns in respect to windows.
2. The resident’s noise reports.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. The resident’s concerns in respect to the kitchen and bathroom.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block which is understood to have been built before 1950. The resident’s household includes her son who is a young adult.
In October 2024, the landlord contacted the resident. It explained it was doing a 6 month follow up to an April 2024 visit which had noted that there was no damp and mould. It requested confirmation if this was still the case. Later that month, new neighbours moved in above the resident.
In early November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about noise from the new neighbours in the flat above. This included noise from renovation works and children. She raised concern about the impact of noise on her wellbeing and ability to live normally.
The landlord asked the resident to complete and return diary sheets and advised her how to make a complaint. The resident completed and returned some diary sheets on 8 November 2024, after which it told her not much could be done.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 November 2024 and also supplied some further diary sheets:
1. She said there was persistent noise throughout the day, such as a child screaming and loud walking, and the child also often screamed in the early hours. She said this affected her mental health and sleep and she had to wear earplugs. She said that she believed the issue was due to poor sound insulation and neighbour behaviour, and requested measures to improve soundproofing.
2. She said that mould consistently returned in her child’s room despite this being treated. She noted that a surveyor had said nothing could be done and it was cosmetic, but she said that the issue was undoubtedly impacting her child’s health. She asked the landlord to address the mould issues.
3. She noted that kitchen and bathrooms had been refurbished in the block but her flat had not been assessed for this. She asked the landlord to improve the standard of her flat.
4. She asked the landlord to consider permanently moving her to reduce the issues and ensure a good standard of living.
5. She said she intended to take the complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025 if it was not resolved by then.
The landlord wrote to the resident later in November 2024 after she supplied further diary sheets. It noted that her neighbour was moving in and the noise was an expected part of this. It acknowledged this could be disruptive and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It said her neighbour had provided assurances that they would try to minimise the noise and complete their moving and decorating as quickly as possible. It said it would monitor the situation and contact the resident in 2 months to assess matters.
The resident responded in late November and early December 2024. She said she wanted to clarify that she heard daily living noise such as walking, and not just construction noise, which she said was due to the poor quality of the ceiling and walls. She said that as she understood this was the response to her formal complaint she would take it further as she had outlined.
On 16 December 2024 a housing and technical officer visited the property. They identified a number of repairs which included treatment and painting of mould–affected areas. The noise was also discussed at the visit. Those present were asked to understand that the neighbour had children and use of carpet and rugs in the flat above was suggested.
The resident contacted us in early January 2025 and then contacted the landlord on our advice. She noted it had not responded to her complaint and we had said it should be escalated. She raised concerns about the noise issue and its impact on her. She noted that the landlord had not given her a promised update after a visit to her neighbour.
The landlord spoke to the resident, her neighbour and the local authority. It then responded to her at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 25 January 2025.
1. It noted concerns the resident raised about the noise and the building. It said it was satisfied that appropriate action was being taken. She had provided diary sheets. It had discussed noise with the neighbour and inspected the flat above. It said that noise created by children in their home was not often regarded as statutory nuisance, but it had referred the issue to the local authority and would support action if they deemed it statutory nuisance. It had discussed assisting the neighbour above with floor coverings. It had discussed mediation.
2. It concluded that there was little it could do to improve soundproofing and that sound transference was likely when living in close proximity to neighbours. However, it had outlined several actions to try and assist with the noise she experienced.
3. It noted it had inspected the property and approved some works. It noted that the contractor had been unable to arrange an appointment with the resident and asked her to contact them to progress the works.
4. It explained that it had been working with an external surveyor about when items such as kitchens needed to be upgraded. It said that a September 2023 survey of the resident’s property indicated that the kitchen would need to be replaced around 2031. It explained this informed its replacement programme and the property was not identified for the recent programme due to the results of the survey. It advised the resident to report any repairs to its contractor in the meantime.
5. It apologised that the resident’s initial report was handled under its antisocial behaviour policy rather than a formal complaint and that this was not clearly communicated to her. It said it had raised this with the relevant team. It awarded £30 in recognition of this.
The landlord subsequently completed the repairs to treat and paint mould-affected areas in late February 2025. The resident remains dissatisfied with its response. She says she seeks compensation and mould and soundproofing works if a move from the property is not possible.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Our remit for investigating complaints is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints that have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident has raised dissatisfaction about the windows in correspondence to the Ombudsman. However, it is not evident that the resident raised the windows to the landlord in the course of her complaint, and its stage 2 response did not address the windows.
The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate the complaint about the windows, as this has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has the option to contact the landlord about any issues with the windows. She also has the option to ask it to raise a complaint about them.

The resident’s noise reports

The resident complained that renovation works and then daily living noise from new tenants above her was very loud. She said this was due to a combination of their lack of consideration and poor sound insulation in the building. She said that the landlord should improve the building or move her. She says any rugs have not stopped the noise transference and that this continues to affect her and her student son (including mental health), prevents her from working from home, and means she has to wear earplugs.
The landlord’s 25 January 2025 stage 2 said that noise from children was not often regarded as statutory nuisance and there was little it could do to improve soundproofing. It said it was satisfied that appropriate action had been taken, as the resident had provided diary sheets, it had inspected the flat above, it had referred the issue to the local authority, discussed mediation, and discussed assisting the neighbour with floor coverings.
The building is only obligated to meet regulations at the time it was built, understood to be around 75 years ago, and it is not evident that the landlord is obligated to soundproof the building or move the resident. Therefore, the main focus of our assessment is whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of noise.
The landlord acted reasonably in line with its antisocial behaviour procedures to visit, advise the resident to keep diary sheets, discuss the noise with her neighbour, and offer mediation. Its position that the noise was not antisocial behaviour was in line with its policy that day to day living noise and noise from children is not antisocial. It sought to help minimise the noise in line with good practice by providing rugs. However, its statement that it could not do anything more unless the local authority determined that it was statutory noise was not accurate.
The neighbour’s tenancy agreement says they must not undertake any alterations, additions or improvements to the premises. They must also not interfere in any way with the flooring of the premises. This includes not laying or installing wooden or laminate flooring.
Our October 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints highlights issues with noise related to hard flooring and families being housed in flats above other residents. The existence of the clause in the landlord’s tenancy agreements about hard flooring shows it is aware that such flooring can be problematic.
The resident asked the landlord what her neighbour’s flooring was in the complaint timeframe. It is not evident that it addressed this, including in its complaint response. The landlord recently informs the Ombudsman that the neighbour had put down laminate flooring. This goes against their tenancy terms, so the landlord had the ability to take more action than it suggested.
The resident reported loud noise from renovation works and children on 1 November 2024, then returned diary sheets on 8 November 2024 that detailed lengthy incidents of loud noise over 9 days. The landlord did not speak to the neighbour until 24 November 2024. This was over 2 weeks after it received the diary sheets, and over 3 weeks after the original report.
This was excessive and the landlord missed an opportunity to confirm, in a timely manner, what the works were and if they were in line with the tenancy terms. This was also potentially a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify that the neighbour intended to put down hard flooring, and to consider if this was reasonable taking into account the family nature of the household, before matters progressed too far.
The landlord recently comments that “we generally suggest no hard flooring above the ground floor, however given resident vulnerabilities and the cost of carpeting we don’t enforce this as standard procedure.” This is reasonable if there are no complaints about a property with hard flooring, but if the landlord receives noise complaints, it would be expected to consider enforcement of the tenancy terms.
The landlord was not reasonable to ignore the tenancy terms, particularly if this may negatively impact the resident, and to require the noise to be statutory noise to consider any enforcement action. This shows a loss of sight of the situations the tenancy terms may have been introduced to address, which potentially include noise from families with laminate flooring above other residents.
The landlord’s handling has clearly undermined the landlord and tenant relationship and left the resident feeling powerless about the significant noise she says she continues to experience daily. The landlord’s lack of robust enforcement of the tenancy terms from the start is also not helpful for maintaining the resident relationships involved, as if issues go on for a long time or there is later enforcement action, this could impact resident relationships more than they otherwise would.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response about noise. It does not show that it sufficiently considered the neighbour’s obligations not to install laminate. It missed potential opportunities to engage with the neighbour earlier to try to prevent them installing laminate. It does not show that it reasonably considered the impact of the neighbour’s family household and the laminate on noise transfer and the noise affecting the resident.
The landlord could have shown that it clearly considered how effective and reasonable rugs were as a solution, compared to available options such as removal of the laminate and replacement with carpet, given these factors. It could have done more to review the noise by making its own arrangements to install noise monitoring equipment, rather than handing responsibility for this to the local authority. It could have considered offering to replace the laminate with carpet at its own cost if concerned about the financial impact of enforcing the tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £300 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. The Ombudsman also orders the landlord to take steps to monitor the noise transference further, and review whether the removal of the laminate flooring is necessary.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident says she started to experience mould since around 2020, when there were water ingress issues at the building. She says that while this was resolved, mould has consistently returned. While we note the resident’s comments, this investigation focuses on events from April 2024, the earliest record about damp and mould in the recent months before her complaint.
The evidence shows that in April 2024, the landlord inspected and found no signs of damp and mould. It then contacted the resident in October 2024. It said it was doing a 6-month check-up after its last visit and asked her to confirm if there was currently damp and mould or not. It notes there was no response to this. The resident did not specifically dispute this in a recent call, in which she also said that the landlord installed a vent in her son’s bedroom in early 2024.
The resident then complained on 18 November 2024, where she said mould consistently returned in her son’s room despite this being treated. She noted that a surveyor had said it was cosmetic, and nothing could be done, but she said the issue was “undoubtedly” impacting her son’s health.
The landlord inspected on 16 December 2024. They noted issues with damp and mould and identified repairs required to treat and paint mould-affected areas. The landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident to discuss and schedule works on 19 December 2024 and 15 and 17 January 2025, and they completed the repairs in late February 2025. The landlord has subsequently told the Ombudsman that it is in the process of rolling out ventilation to all properties on the resident’s estate, and had requested for this to be completed as soon as possible at the resident’s property.
The evidence shows that, in the complaint timeframe, the landlord has generally been proactive and sought to take action for any damp and mould issues at the property. The February 2025 works also seem reasonably timely given the contacts to the resident from mid-December 2024 to try to book these in. However, after the resident’s reports of mould in her complaint on 18 November 2024, the landlord did not inspect until 16 December 2024, 20 working days later.
This was not in line with the 7 working day timeframe for damp and mould reports and urgent repairs. This is not entirely satisfactory given the resident said mould “undoubtedly” affected her son’s health, but it is noted that this does not seem to have had a significant impact on the resident or matters. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about damp and mould.
While this is the case, the Ombudsman does note that the resident seems unaware of plans the landlord tells us it has for ventilation works on the estate and at her flat. A recommendation is therefore made about this.

The resident’s concerns in respect to the kitchen and bathroom

The resident complained that her flat had not been assessed for the refurbishment of her kitchen and bathroom. She asked the landlord to improve the standard of her flat. The landlord responded that the flat was not included in a recent refurbishment programme due to the findings of a September 2023 survey. It said this indicated that the kitchen would need to be replaced around 2031.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction with the property. It is not within our authority or expertise to determine when improvement works should be carried out. Our main consideration is whether this aspect has been handled appropriately in the complaint timeframe.
The landlord did not specifically address when the September 2023 survey indicated that the bathroom was due for renewal. It could have been clearer about this given the resident raised the bathroom as well as the kitchen. However, the September 2023 survey has been seen as part of this investigation. This shows that the landlord has assessed the flat to identify when components should be renewed. This also shows that the identified timeframes for the renewal of the kitchen and bathroom have not been exceeded.
The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors about when components need to be renewed. The Ombudsman therefore finds no failings in its handling about the kitchen and bathroom. While this is the case, we do recommend the landlord to inform the resident when it estimates it may refurbish the bathroom.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about windows is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s noise reports.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in respect to the kitchen and bathroom.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the noise issues.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, take steps to obtain information in order to consider if it should ask the neighbour to remove their laminate flooring. As part of this it must:
1. Liaise with the resident to log and review current noise she experiences.
2. Hire and install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
3. Hire an independent acoustic specialist to provide feedback on whether the floor coverings in the neighbour’s flat are an effective and reasonable alternative to removal of the laminate and replacement with underlay and carpet.
The landlord must then, within 8 weeks, consider if it should ask the neighbour to remove their laminate flooring or replace it with carpet at its cost, or if this should be left in situ. As part of this, it should review diary sheets, noise recordings, and the specialist’s feedback. It should then write to the resident and Ombudsman with the outcome and an action plan for any follow up actions.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders in the timeframes set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review our spotlight report on noise complaints and consider learning and staff training needs for how it handles noise reports.
The landlord is recommended to ensure relevant staff consider tenancy agreements when noise reports are received about properties with laminate flooring.
The landlord is recommended to ensure that it responds to damp and mould reports within the timeframes set out in its policies.
The landlord is recommended to write to the resident about the ventilation works it is progressing on the estate and provide information about what these are, how they will benefit the property, and when it estimates they will be done at her flat.
The landlord is recommended to inform the resident when it estimates it may refurbish the bathroom, and update her about when it estimates it may refurbish the kitchen.