Onward Homes Limited (202413432)

Decision
Case ID	202413432
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Onward Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat, which is part of a retirement living scheme.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Noise nuisance

4. The landlord did not respond promptly or effectively to the resident’s noise reports. The landlord’s reliance on its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, without a separate strategy for managing non-statutory noise, limited its ability to respond proactively. There were significant delays in opening an ASB case and conducting a risk assessment. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failures.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint at stage 2, requiring our intervention. It also did not offer any apology or redress for its complaint handling failures.

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 senior member of staff. 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 18 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of reports of noise nuisance. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 18 November 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord considers developing a separate, dedicated policy for managing noise complaints – particularly those that fall outside the scope of statutory nuisance or ASB.
It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). It should consider assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations in this report.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 May 2023	The resident raised his complaint. He said he was experiencing “continuous and abrasive” noises from his upstairs neighbour, which had been ongoing since he moved in 7 months earlier. He stated he had brought it to the attention of the landlord’s scheme manager on “numerous occasions”.
13 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had taken steps to reduce the noise. It stated the noise the resident was hearing was normal daily living noise.
13 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was still experiencing noise from his neighbour.
22 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had conducted its investigation thoroughly. It concluded that it had been able to reduce some noise transference, but it was unable to take any further action without evidence to support the resident’s allegations of excessive noise.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as he said the noise was still ongoing and he felt the landlord was “doing nothing” to resolve the problem.
13 October 2025	During contact with us, the resident said he was still experiencing noise from his neighbour. He stated he had accepted the offer of another property from the landlord. He asked us to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of his reports.

 

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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord was aware of noise issues from the upstairs neighbour prior to him moving into the property, in August 2022. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. As part of our investigation, we have not identified any references to prior noise issues, which limits our ability to assess this aspect of the case. Therefore, our investigation will focus on the events reported by the resident from the time his tenancy started onwards.
7. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported the noise nuisance. However, internal correspondence following the resident’s formal complaint in May 2023 suggests that he raised concerns about noise with the scheme manager as early as one week after moving into the property in August 2022. Despite this, the landlord has not provided documentation confirming these reports or detailing any actions taken in response. When asked, it said that no notes were available from the scheme manager, which points to poor record keeping practices.
8. In its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023, the landlord stated it had taken steps to reduce noise from the flat above. It explained that the resident’s neighbour used a hoist, and that the type of hoist had been changed to minimise noise. Additionally, the landlord said it had spoken with the neighbour’s carers and asked them to be more mindful of the noise levels. These were positive and practical steps. However, due to poor record keeping, we are unable to determine whether the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe.
9. The landlord also stated in its stage 1 response that the noise reported by the resident was typical of daily living in sheltered housing and would not be considered a noise nuisance. It did not commit to taking any further action and advised the resident to inform the scheme manager if there were any changes. While it was appropriate for the landlord to set out its position in relation to the noise, it failed to explore what further steps could be taken to investigate or reduce the impact of the noise the resident was experiencing. This was unreasonable and left the resident living with unresolved issues, which contributed to his distress.
10. There is a notable gap in the landlord’s records between 13 June 2023 and 13 May 2024. This points to further record keeping issues and prevents us from assessing what actions, if any, were taken over the course of these 11 months.
11. On 13 May 2024, the resident escalated his complaint, stating that he was still being disturbed by noise from the neighbour above. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to the noise reports until 4 September 2024 – 4 months later. At that point, it took appropriate steps by opening an ASB case, completing a risk assessment, creating an action plan, visiting both the resident and the neighbour, and making a referral for mediation. While these actions were consistent with the approach of the landlord’s ASB procedure, the delay in responding was unreasonable and came too late in the process. This likely contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
12. When the landlord opened the ASB case, it had been 2 years since the resident had first reported the noise. When asked why it had not opened a case sooner, the landlord said the noise came from a disability hoist, which it did not consider a statutory noise nuisance. However, it’s unclear why the landlord later decided to open an ASB case, since the nature of the noise had not changed.
13. The landlord’s ASB procedure gives examples of everyday living noises which it does not treat as ASB such as children crying and vacuuming. While the landlord had classified the noise reported by the resident as “normal daily activity noise”, it did not have a more suitable policy to deal with the issue. In this situation, it should have opened an ASB case from the start. Doing so would have helped it to keep accurate records of the resident’s reports, any communication, and the actions taken. It would have also prompted it to complete a risk assessment at an earlier stage. Waiting 2 years to open a case was inappropriate and shows poor record keeping and case management.
14. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints (published in October 2022) states, “Landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate.” Had the landlord followed these recommendations, it might have been better equipped to respond earlier and more effectively. The lack of a distinct policy or structured approach to handling reports of non-statutory noise likely contributed to delays and missed opportunities to resolve the issues at an earlier stage, resulting in avoidable distress for the resident.
15. We recognise that this was a challenging case for the landlord to manage, particularly due to the neighbour’s personal circumstances. However, the persistence of the noise meant that the resident continued to experience significant disturbance and distress. The resident told us that the situation had affected his mental health. While we are not medical specialists and cannot determine impact on health, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings in the landlord’s response. The landlord should have acted sooner to address the resident’s concerns. Instead, it prolonged the situation by failing to respond promptly, causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £500 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.
17. After the complaints process ended on 22 October 2024, the resident continued to report noise nuisance. In response, the landlord took several appropriate steps, including:
    1. Working with environmental health to install noise monitoring equipment.
    2. Requesting a management move for the resident.
    3. Installing carpets in the upstairs property to help reduce noise.
    4. Referring the resident to mediation.
18. During contact with us in October 2025, the resident reported the noise was still ongoing. This shows that the issue had not yet been resolved. The resident explained that the landlord had offered him another property and while he did not want to move, he felt he had no other choice. He said he had accepted the landlord’s offer and was waiting for a moving date.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in March 2022.
20. The landlord’s complaints policy was consistent with the requirements of the Code in respect of timescales for complaint responses. However, its policy stated it would acknowledge complaints in 2 working days at both stages, which differs from the Code.
21. The landlord responded at stage 1 within the required timescales. At stage 2, it took 31 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and 22 working days to notify him of an extension. Both exceeded the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. The delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on 2 occasions, adding to his distress and inconvenience.
22. In its extension request on 26 July 2024, the landlord said it expected to provide its stage 2 response by 23 August 2024. However, it did not respond by this date or inform the resident of a revised timeframe, which likely caused him some uncertainty. This led to the resident contacting us, after which we had to prompt the landlord to respond. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 October 2024 – 61 working days after the extension request. This delay significantly exceeded the timescales set out in both the landlord’s policy and the Code.
23. The landlord did not apologise or offer any redress for its delay, which was inconsistent with its remedies and financial redress guidance. We consider a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

24. The landlord does not have a dedicated policy for managing non-ASB noise issues, which contributed to the failures identified in this investigation. The landlord should familiarise itself with our spotlight report on noise complaints and use the recommendations from this report to guide its future approach.
25. The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the resident’s reports to the scheme manager over a 9-month period, or any records of actions taken in response. This, along with other noticeable gaps in the landlord’s records, highlights poor record keeping. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents, including notes from scheme manager interactions.

Communication

27. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response. Although it issued an extension, it did not update the resident after missing the revised deadline, prompting the resident to contact us for support. This highlights the importance of effective communication during the complaints process, particularly in keeping residents informed of any expected delays.