Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202453198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453198

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

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 resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the resident.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The resident has told us she has Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (EUPD) alongside general anxiety and panic disorders.
The resident had reported a humming noise coming from her neighbours washing machine since 2019. She said this disturbed her sleep and exacerbated her EUPD and other conditions, and at times caused her to feel suicidal.
The landlord reports that the resident raised concerns about noise from a neighbouring property in 2021. It opened an ASB case and from 2021 to 2023 it completed investigations into the issue, including:
1. Sending a letter to all residents asking them not to run washing machines/tumble dryers between 11:00pm to 07:30am.
2. Interviewing neighbours.
3. Installing noise recording equipment.
4. Providing the resident with its noise app.
5. Arranging for a plumber, electrician, and surveyor to investigate the noise.
6. Raising safeguarding concerns with the local council and referring the resident to adult social care.
7. Offering the resident additional support through a referral to its Assessment and Support Team.
The landlord closed its ASB case in March 2022, concluding there was no evidence of unreasonable noise. In May 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the ASB issue. It is unclear from the evidence provided what happened between May 2023 and May 2024. In May 2024 the landlord requested an interview with the resident following reports of ASB towards a neighbour. In July 2024 the resident raised further reports of noise. In August 2024 the landlord sent the resident a final warning letter for reported ASB towards her neighbour.
On 26 November 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of noise. Namely that:
1. The landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation into the noise.
2. The landlord’s staff had acted in an uncaring and bias manner.
3. The landlord had treated her as the perpetrator of ASB, rather than the victim.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2024. It said it had attended the neighbour’s property, and the sound was general household noise. The landlord said it had followed the correct process and had made a referral to the Assessment and Support Team. It said the resident had been provided with a noise machine so the matter could be monitored. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 December 2024 because she said:
1. The landlord had not attended her property to carry out a thorough investigation into the noise, and it had not considered all possible solutions to identify and resolve the issue.
2. Due to the hostility of the LHMs who previously dealt with the matter, impartial members of staff should investigate the issue, if possible.
3. She had no issue with her neighbour. But the noise was disrupting her sleep which had caused her to suffer 2 nervous breakdowns, impacted her quality of life, and left her feeling hopeless.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025. It said it had reviewed the reported noise, including interviewing neighbours, and installing a noise machine. However, it had found no evidence the washing machine had caused a nuisance. The landlord said it would schedule a visit with the resident and her neighbour to establish if the washing machine could be heard. The landlord noted additional support was available, but this had previously been rejected. It said it had correctly followed its procedures in response to the reports of ASB. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Following its stage 2 response, the resident reported that another neighbour had complained about the noise several years ago. She raised concerns about the impartiality of staff attending. She also reported the noise recorder was not designed to record the type of noise occurring. The resident reported that she believed the washing machine had been pushed up against pipework, possibly causing the noise.
On 11 February 2025 two LHMs attended to investigate the noise in the resident and neighbour’s property. The landlord reports that an LHM attended each property for 25 minutes, while the washing machine ran on a spin cycle. The landlord reported the washing machine was quiet in the neighbour’s property, and no noise could be heard in the resident’s property.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service in April 2025. She reported the landlord had previously told her the LHM would stay for the duration of a whole wash. She informed us about the continued impact of the issue on her health and that she was receiving support for this. The resident also reported the neighbour continues to use the washing machine after hours.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident reports historical issues of noise dating back to 2019. However, the earliest record of the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the reported noise was in May 2023 and later in November 2024. In the interest of fairness, we expect residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, so landlords have a reasonable opportunity to investigate while issues are ‘live’ and reliable evidence is available. Given the time that’s passed, this investigation will not consider historical issues dating back to 2019. Any reference to events before 2023 is for context only.
This investigation will consider events from 2023 onwards to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reported issue was appropriate during a reasonable period of time prior to the resident raising her complaint. This investigation will also consider any actions agreed by the landlord in its complaint responses.
We recognise this has been a difficult situation for the resident and that the noise issues reported to the landlord have caused her distress. It’s not our role to determine the cause of the reported issue or establish whether either party is responsible for noise or ASB. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise and the associated complaint in a way that’s fair and reasonable.
Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the impact she felt the noise had on her health. While we recognise the resident’s concerns, we are unable to establish the cause of a reported health issue. Generally, such matters are better suited to consideration by the courts or through a personal injury claim. We can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the impact of the issue on her health.

Assessment

Having carefully considered this complaint, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. However, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The reasons for this are set out below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property

When the resident first reported noise in 2021 the landlord handled the case under its ASB procedure. The landlord reportedly carried out a number of actions, summarised earlier in this report, between 2021 to 2023. We do not have a full record of the actions the landlord took in response to the resident’s earlier reports of noise. However, the resident has not disputed that the landlord completed these actions.
Additionally, the landlord reports that between 2021 and 2023 it completed a safeguarding referral for the resident and offered additional support which the resident declined. This is also not in dispute. While the landlord’s handling of these historical reports of noise is outside of the scope of this report, it provides relevant context for the landlord’s later response to the resident’s report of noise and its actions from the beginning of 2023 onwards.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB in line with the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely, behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. The policy says persistent noise will be considered as ASB. The policy says the landlord will respond to all reports of ASB when the complainant or perpetrator are considered vulnerable.
As part of the investigation process with our Service, the landlord has provided records which show that from 2023 onwards the first evidence of the resident raising concerns with the landlord about the noise, and about its handling of the issue, was when she made a formal complaint on 15 May 2023.
The landlord’s complaint handling is considered elsewhere in this report. Following the resident’s reports of noise on 15 May 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord opened a new ASB case to investigate the resident’s concerns.
As highlighted in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints published in October 2022, not all reports of noise should be investigated under a landlords ASB policy. However, we would generally expect landlords to consider residents reports of noise irrespective of whether it was an ASB or noise transference issue.
That said, we recognise in this case the landlord had already carried out an investigation into the issue reported and had found no evidence of noise nuisance. There is no evidence to show the resident provided new evidence or information in May 2023 which would lead the landlord to reach a different outcome to what it had reached in its previous investigations into the reported noise. Taking this into account, we do not consider the landlord acted unfairly or unreasonably by not opening a new ASB case in response to the resident’s concerns.
The call notes from the time show the landlord offered to attend the resident’s property and listen to the washing machine. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised the need to act upon the resident’s new reports of noise. While the landlord’s proposed action was reasonable and proportionate, there is no evidence the landlord attended the resident’s property until February 2025. We expect landlords to act in a timely manner, which did not happen in this case. This was unreasonable.
That said, it is unlikely that the landlord’s lack of action in May 2023 changed the overall outcome of its response to the resident’s reports of noise. This is because when the landlord did attend the property later, in February 2025, it found no evidence of an unreasonable level of noise. There is nothing to suggest it would not have reached the same conclusion if it had also attended in May 2023.
Based on the evidence we have received there appears to be a gap in reports of noise until July 2024. The landlord’s records show the resident raised further concerns about the noise on or around 18 July 2024 and 21 October 2024. The system notes provided by the landlord as part of our investigation process show it advised the resident that the sound from the neighbour’s washing machine was general noise and to contact the local council’s noise team if she felt the neighbour was running the machine at unsociable times.
A local council’s environmental health team are responsible for establishing whether there has been statutory noise nuisance. So, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refer the tenant to the local council. However, it remains the case that the landlord should also respond to reports of extreme and persistent noise under its ASB policy. We would also expect the landlord to respond to reports of noise transference, irrespective of whether it considers this to be ASB.
Additionally, the landlord evidently considered this an issue it should respond to, as it had previously responded to the resident’s reports about the same matter, including writing to all residents about the impact of potential noise during unsociable hours.
In the Ombudsman’s view, it was unreasonable for the landlord to only refer the resident to the local council. Instead, we would have expected the landlord to also consider the resident’s reports of noise. However, we recognise there is no evidence the resident provided new information which would suggest further action from the landlord would have led to a different outcome to what the landlord had previously established in its earlier investigation into the reported noise issue.
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of noise on 26 November 2024. In its complaint responses the landlord said it had previously completed a thorough investigation and found no evidence of an unreasonable level of noise. The landlord did not uphold any element of the complaint. However, it did agree to schedule an appointment to listen to the washing machine in the resident’s property. The landlord also noted that while the resident had previously declined its offer of additional support, this remained available.
The landlord’s records show two LHMs attended on 11 February 2025 to listen to the washing machine. The notes the landlord has provided our Service say the LHMs attended for roughly 25 minutes, and they alternated between the resident’s and the neighbour’s property roughly half-way through the visit. The LHMs reported that the neighbour ran the washing machine on a 1400 spin cycle, and no noise could be heard from the resident’s property. Following this, we do not know whether landlord considered the resident’s reports about the placement of the washing machine or offered any further advice, such as the use of noise prevention mats, or if any further action was taken.
We recognise the resident has said the LHMs should have stayed for the duration of a whole wash cycle. However, as washing machines are typically at their loudest during a spin cycle, we think the landlord’s decision was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
Equally, while we acknowledge the resident’s concerns of impartiality and her reports of previous hostility from the LHMs who attended, we have seen no evidence to suggest bias or hostility from the landlord’s staff. So, we do not think the landlord acted inappropriately by appointing LHMs who had previously investigated matters. However, we do note the landlord has not addressed the resident’s concerns in their responses to the resident’s complaint.
In summary, we have identified some concerns in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise in May 2023, July 2024 and October 2024. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord would have identified an unreasonable level of noise and therefore reached a different outcome in the resident’s case if it had investigated the matter sooner. When the landlord did investigate, as part of its response to the resident’s November 2024 complaint, it took reasonable and proportionate action, and it was unable to find evidence of a noise that was unreasonable or outside of day-to-day noise. Additionally, the landlord showed concern for the resident by highlighting that additional support was still available should she require it.
Taking the above into account, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB by the resident

On 16 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting she attend an interview the following day having received reports that she had harassed, threatened and verbally abused her neighbour. The landlord sent a further letter on 29 May 2024 noting the resident had not attended the scheduled interview. The landlord requested the resident attend a rescheduled interview on 3 June 2024. The evidence suggests that during the interview the resident confirmed she had knocked on the neighbour’s door during unsociable hours and spat at the neighbour’s car.
On 5 August 2024 the landlord sent the resident a final warning letter stating the resident had breached her tenancy agreement. The landlord said it would not hesitate to take legal action, including possession proceedings, if further allegations of ASB were made against the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will treat verbal abuse, harassment, and threatening behaviour as ASB. And it will take steps to prevent reports of ASB from escalating into more serious incidents. While we appreciate the resident’s frustration at the situation. Given the reports of the resident’s actions, it was reasonable for the landlord to request an interview with the resident and send the final warning letter making clear the potential outcome of a breach of her tenancy agreement. We understand following this letter no further action was taken. We note the landlord did not address this in its complaint responses, despite the resident having indicated that she had been treated as the perpetrator of ASB in her complaint.
Taking the above into account, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB by the resident.

The associated complaint handling

As mentioned earlier in this report, the evidence suggests the resident raised a formal complaint in May 2023. It is clear the landlord was aware of this, as the complaint is mentioned in its notes from that period. However, in its response to our Service’s request for details of all formal complaint correspondence, including complaint responses, the landlord has not evidenced that it responded to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy, in place at the time, defined a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The resident raised dissatisfaction in May 2023 about the landlord’s response to her reports of noise. In line with its policy, the landlord should have recorded this as a complaint. There is no evidence it did so.
Additionally, the policy says that after logging a complaint the landlord will:
1. Look to resolve complaints quickly and effectively with a local resolution.
2. If a local resolution isn’t possible, contact the resident to log a formal stage one complaint.
3. Send the resident an acknowledgment of the complaint, confirming the complaint reference number, details of the appropriate ombudsman for the complaint, along with the name and contact details of the assigned complaint handler.
4. Investigate the complaint, keeping the resident informed throughout, and provide a resolution to as soon as possible, in line with requirements of the appropriate ombudsman for the complaint.
There is no evidence the landlord completed any of the above in relation to the resident’s complaint raised in May 2023. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate the matter through its complaint handling process, which would have likely led to the landlord attending the resident’s home earlier than it did. While it is unlikely this would have changed the landlord’s overall findings, it would have saved the resident time and trouble in pursuing their complaint in November 2024. This was unreasonable and is a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning from this date onwards all members of the Scheme are obliged to follow it.
The resident raised a further complaint on 26 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 December 2024. Itconfirmed a case handler would be in touch once allocated the case, and where possible they would respond within 10 working days. The landlord sent a further update on 5 December 2024 noting a case handler had been allocated. At this point the landlord defined the complaint and confirmed it would provide a response in 10 working days. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 December 2024.
The Code says complaints must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint in good time, it did not define the complaint within 5 working days of it being received. This is a failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment of the complaint. This is in accordance with the Code.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident escalated her complaint on 27 December 2024. This appears incorrect. In its submission to this Service, the landlord has provided a screenshot of the resident’s escalation which is dated 19 December 2024. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged and defined the resident’s complaint on 27 December 2024 and sent its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025. The landlord handled the stage 2 complaint in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
The Code says the landlord must address all complaint points raised in the complaint definition. As mentioned earlier in this report, the resident has raised concerns about its handling of the case which the landlord has not addressed in its complaint responses. For instance, the landlord’s decision to send a final warning letter, or whether the landlord’s staff acted in an uncaring and bias way. The landlord must satisfy itself and the Ombudsman that it has sufficiently addressed the resident’s concerns. It has not done so in this case.
Although it has not impacted this case, we note there are areas of the landlord’s policy that are not in line with the Code. The landlord’s policy says it will only escalate a complaint to stage 2 if:
1. The response received at stage 1 is factually incorrect.
2. The response received does not address the initial complaint.
3. Important information provided in the initial complaint has not been considered.
4. Actions agreed at stage 1 have not been completed as agreed.
The Code says that if all or part of a complaint is not resolved to a resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2, and a landlord must not require a resident to explain the reasons for escalating. In this case the landlord did not try to prevent the resident from escalating her complaint. However, it remains the case that this policy is not in keeping with the Code.
Additionally, the landlord’s policy says it will look to resolve complaints quickly and effectively with a local resolution and log a formal complaint if this is not possible. The landlord defines a local resolution as a complaint dealt with at the initial point of contact to the satisfaction of the person complaining, without the need for a formal complaint investigation.
This is an additional ‘informal’ step in the landlord’s complaint procedure. The Code says that it is not appropriate to have extra stages, such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’ as this causes unnecessary confusion, and a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. So this area of the policy is not in line with the Code.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has been poor. It was unreasonable for the landlord to take no action following receipt of the complaint in May 2023, and there were minor delays in its handling of the complaint from November 2024. Additionally, while it did not impact the resident in this case, the landlord’s policy does not comply with the Code.
Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
As a result of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, the resident had to raise her complaint on two occasions. This would have been avoided if the landlord had responded in May 2023. In recognition of this inconvenience, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for any distress and inconvenience related to the complaint handling failures identified.
This award must be paid to the resident directly. With the next 4 weeks, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman evidence it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord review its complaints handling policy and ensure this aligns with the Code.