Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202304757)

Decision
Case ID	202304757
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor 2-bedroom flat. She has been reporting hearing her neighbours’ footsteps for several years, although the available records do not confirm for how long. Her neighbour has young children. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord has responded to her concerns and her formal complaint about the matter

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of noise transference.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference.
2. The landlord reasonably put right failings in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Noise transference

The landlord has failed to evidence that it acted promptly to investigate the resident’s noise reports, and that investigations it agreed to were undertaken. It has provided no record demonstrating its actions, findings or decisions. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s first response was delayed and did not meet its policy timescales. It did though recognise this failing and the impact of this and took appropriate steps to put it right in the final response.

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 someone senior, such as a head of service, assistant director, or director. 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 27 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to update her about its investigations. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence.	27 November 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident and her neighbour to arrange an inspection unless it can provide evidence it has already completed one. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure its attending officers: Inspect the neighbours flooring, listen to the sounds from the resident’s flat, record their findings and decision, including timescales for any actions it intends to take.	27 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider our recommendation in our spotlight report on noise of having a specific policy and process for managing noise complaints. In part, this will give its staff and residents defined steps and timescales to follow.
It should reoffer the compensation it awarded for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response, as our decision that there has been reasonable redress was based on this offer having been made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 September 2023	The resident raised her complaint via this Service about the landlord’s response to her reports of a noise problem. She said she had reported it in January 2023 and then complained in April 2023 after receiving no response from the landlord. The resident said she believed the noise was caused by the neighbour installing laminate flooring. She asked for the landlord to investigate why the noise was happening and to install insulation between the flats.
16 January 2024	In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it: Had initially considered our referral as a service request because it could find no earlier reports or complaints about the noise transference from the resident. Had spoken with the resident in October 2023 to establish the problem and attempted to inspect the flat above without success. Would open an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case to investigate the matter further. Was unable to install sound proofing but would explore options to reduce noise, such as replacing laminate flooring with carpets. Was sorry there was a delay in the complaint response after it was logged on 27 December 2023 and awarded £25 compensation.
22 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she said the communication about its investigation into her report had been poor. She said the situation was affecting her a lot and asked for help in looking for a permanent solution.
13 February 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised that there had been numerous reports about the noise from the resident dating back years but there was no evidence it met the threshold to be considered ASB. It said it had investigated her recent report and had come to the same conclusion but had though sent a letter to her neighbour advising of the problem. The compensation awarded for the delays in the complaint was too low and increased it by £150 (to £175 in total). It confirmed it would inspect the neighbours flooring and her flat at the same time to witness the noise.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she said the situation had not been resolved. She said it was continuing to affect her sleep and mental health. She wants the landlord to find a solution. The landlord opened an ASB case in November 2024 following a report from the resident about her neighbour, although we do not know if this is about the same problem.

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 response to the resident’s reports of noise transference.
Finding	Maladministration

It is undisputed that the resident was reporting the same noise problem that she believed to be caused by laminate or hardwood flooring for many years prior to her complaining. The landlord’s website states that tenants require its consent to install laminate flooring as a condition of the tenancy. There is no reference to this being a reason to act under the ASB policy. The landlord had though previously investigated it as possible ASB but the evidence did not meet the threshold. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation about why the more recent report was not investigated as ASB was supported by the available records and its undisputed account. We have also seen no evidence of another policy or process in place that it should have followed. As such, we have assessed the landlord’s actions based on reasonableness because we cannot measure them against a defined policy or process.
The resident repeatedly said that the noise was affecting her significantly. It would be reasonable then to expect the landlord to respond to her promptly and keep her informed about any actions it agreed to take. We are unable to establish that it received a report prior to our involvement in late-September 2023 from the records available. However, those provided by the landlord began from when the resident asked to escalate her complaint in mid-January 2024. She also said in her request that she had not heard anything about her report of noise transference. Therefore, the evidence does not support that the landlord was progressing the matter or keeping the resident updated in the 3 months between receiving the new report and the initial complaint response.
The records show that the landlord took some appropriate actions. It met with the resident on 31 January 2024 to discuss the problem and listened to her recordings. It also spoke with her neighbour to explain the situation. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it inspected both the resident’s and neighbour’s properties at the same time to check if the noise could be replicated. The landlord advised this was because an appointment scheduled on 21 February 2024 did not go ahead because of the availability of one of the parties. However, the contact records show that the landlord offered to attend the week later and asked the resident to confirm a suitable date and time. She did respond to say the suggested date was unsuitable. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it offered a different appointment. This was a failing.
The landlord advised us that the inspection took place in late March 2024, but that it does not have records of this or its findings. It also has not written to the resident to confirm the outcome of this. In the circumstances, it cannot show us it completed the actions it agreed to. This has caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience because it has not shown it has fully investigated her reports and she does not know if the outcome would have been different.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 required landlords to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. Landlords also must have a process that ensures complaints are dealt with impartially, all aspects are addressed, and decisions are clearly explained. The landlord’s complaints policy adhered to the timescales of the Code but was silent on what measures it would take to provide quality responses. Its focus was on providing resolutions. This was not in line with the spirit of the Code, which encourages landlord’s to be open about when it has got something wrong and to learn from it.
We are unable to establish that the landlord received the complaints the resident made in January 2023 and April 2023 from the available records. It did though evidently receive notification through our Service that she wanted to complain. The landlord’s decision to deal with the matter as a service request would not have been unreasonable if it had sought the resident’s approval. However, there is no record in those shared that it did this. The landlord’s recognition of a failing, apology, and compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.
For failings in complaint handling the landlord’s compensation policy states it will apologise. In the resident’s case, however, it awarded £175 compensation which it said was for the 3-month delay in responding to the complaint. This amount was in line with payments it makes for service failure that have caused a medium impact. It was also within the range our remedies guidance states should be paid to put right distress and inconvenience that is short lived.
The stage 1 response made no reference to the history of the resident’s noise reports. This was relevant context that should have been considered and included. The stage 2 response did though refer to this. It also found that the initial response was incorrect to state that the matter would be investigated as ASB. As such, the landlord put right its earlier mistakes and because of this it provided a clear decision and better quality response to the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The gaps in the records mean the landlord could not evidence that it was doing everything it could to progress the matter reasonably during the complaint and after. It also means it cannot show us it completed actions it said it did. The landlord should consider how it will ensure it records its actions and decisions on cases that fall outside any of its published policies and processes.

Communication

The resident said she received no updates about the noise transference report and there is no evidence that she did until after she escalated her complaint. There is also no record that she was contacted again after the inspection appointment was unsuccessful. The landlord should consider how it can improve communication with residents where other departments are involved during the complaints process.