bpha Limited (202300447)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300447

bpha Limited

22 September 2025

Updated 5 January 2026

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a communal boiler.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat.
  2. In September 2022 the landlord installed a new communal water heating system in the building which is comprised of 3 blocks. The plant room where the communal boiler is located is on the ground floor of the resident’s block. On 7 October 2022 the resident told the landlord he was experiencing increased levels of noise from the plant room. The landlord acknowledged the noise and said it hoped this would reduce once the boiler was fully commissioned.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 February 2023. He said the walls in his flat had made a buzzing noise 24 hours a day since September 2022 and it was impossible to sleep with the noise coming from the pipes. The resident was unhappy the final commissioning was still outstanding and felt the system had been poorly engineered.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 17 March 2023. It said the final commissioning of the system was underway and apologised for the delays. It said it would measure the noise levels once all the works were completed.
  5. On 5 April 2023 the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. He said there had been no improvement of the noise in his flat and he was unhappy with the landlord’s proposed solution of installing a sub-floor. The resident asked the landlord to investigate the noise further and consider compensation for the ongoing impact it was having on him.
  6. The landlord arranged an appeal hearing which took place on 3 May 2023 with an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) in attendance. Following the hearing, on 4 May 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response to his complaint. It said it would seek input from an acoustic surveyor to assess the noise, as suggested by the EHO. It promised to keep the resident informed of the progress and said it would review the resident’s request for compensation once it obtained the report.
  7. On 30 January 2024 the landlord issued a follow up to its stage 2 response in which it confirmed the acoustic surveyor identified 2 initial actions to reduce the noise. It said it had offered to complete the 1st action which was to install additional insulation in the resident’s flat. It noted the resident had declined this but confirmed the offer was still available. The landlord also confirmed it would not offer any compensation for the noise as it did not believe it to be a statutory nuisance or other breach of regulation or contract.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the solution proposed by the landlord. He said he wants the landlord to carry out works on the pipes before carrying out any works in his flat. The resident said he also wants the landlord to pay him compensation for the ongoing impact the noise is having on him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health as he has not been able to sleep at night. He requested compensation from the landlord. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal boiler

  1. The landlord confirmed it did not believe the noise was a statutory noise nuisance. It is important to note our role is not to establish whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance. This is a matter for the Local Authority. Our investigation focused on whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its actions were fair in the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord has not shared with us any policies which would set out its approach to noise reports of this nature. Therefore, we’ve considered whether its response, timeliness of its actions, and communication with the resident were reasonable and appropriate.
  3. The resident first reported the issue to the landlord on 7 October 2022. In response to this, it arranged for the housing liaison officer to visit and discuss his concerns.
  4. On 22 November 2022 the landlord asked its contractors to review noise readings it had taken in each block and confirm whether they were within the expected limits. It noted there was “quite a lot of reverberation noise” in the resident’s block compared to others. On 29 November 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident the system was working as expected. It said that while it could not turn it off entirely, it would review the possibility of reducing its capacity which it hoped would reduce the noise. In December 2022 it also confirmed to the resident the final commissioning of the system was still outstanding and would start in the New Year.
  5. The landlord confirmed the final commissioning started in January 2023, but it was paused as the contractors needed to arrange access to all 55 flats in the building, which was difficult since they were occupied. The works restarted on 13 March 2023 and although the exact completion date is unclear, the landlord took further noise readings on 27 March 2023. It told the resident it found a 10% reduction of the noise in the plant room and outside of his flat compared with the readings it took in November 2022. On 5 April 2023 the resident told the landlord the noise in his flat was still the same. By this point it had been 6 months since the resident originally complained of the noise.
  6. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in completing the final works, but it explained why these could not have been avoided. The evidence also shows it was in regular communication with the contractors to expedite the works. The landlord relied on its contractors’ advice that the system needed to be set to the correct capacity and that this could impact the level of noise. Therefore, its approach of waiting to measure the noise again until the system was fully commissioned was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. In April 2023 the landlord mentioned the possibility of installing a sub-floor. This demonstrated its willingness to resolve the issue, however the resident felt this would not eliminate the noise. On 19 April 2023 the landlord shared details of its findings with the EHO. Following the appeal hearing on 3 May 2023, it was agreed it would seek input from an acoustic surveyor.
  8. The landlord instructed an acoustic surveyor on 9 June 2023 and arranged their next available appointment on 19 July 2023 which was almost 11 weeks after its stage 2 response. We understand finding specialist contractors can take time, however we would expect the landlord to try and arrange this as soon as possible.
  9. The evidence shows that the landlord was actively seeking an appropriate contractor to complete an acoustic survey and recommend any improvements, if applicable. When the landlord experienced issues with securing a date for the survey, it appropriately informed the resident that it may seek to appoint a new contractor if the service did not improve. This was reasonable, as we expect landlords to ensure they employ contractors with sufficient capacity to respond to their requirements.
  10. The surveyor shared their initial findings with the landlord in August 2023 and sent their full report on 1 September 2023. Their investigation found there was an “audible hum” in the resident’s living room and bedroom. The surveyor confirmed the measured noise readings in the bedroom and some areas of the living room “exceeded the suggested maximum cumulative building services noise for comfort”. They recommended 2 actions as a first step in reducing the noise. The first one involved additional insulation in the resident’s flat. The second was to install antivibration mounts to the pipes on the ground floor.
  11. On 6 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it had obtained a quote for the first part of the recommended works, and it was ready to complete them. The resident declined and asked the landlord to consider the antivibration mounts first. The landlord said it was still waiting for a quote for this, but it believed the work would be more complicated and expensive. It maintained its offer of insulation in the flat which the resident continued to decline. The resident recently confirmed the position remains unchanged.
  12. While we appreciate the resident strongly feels the landlord should carry out the works involving the pipes first, the surveyor has not specified an order in which these works should be completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to have considered the cost and complexity of the proposed recommendations. Its offer of starting the works for which it had obtained a quote and was able to carry out was reasonable. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the landlord must consider what is efficient and appropriate—both economically and fit-for-purpose—in line with its repair obligations.
  13. We also acknowledge that the situation has been ongoing for a number of months. However, the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately communicated with the resident, kept him up to date with any delays, and provided clear explanations of the actions it was taking. It received recommendations from an external contractor to remedy the noise and, while we are not questioning the resident’s reasons for refusing the works, this ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not fully responsible for the lack of resolution.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable in 2023 said it would provide a full written response to a complaint within 10 working days or let the customer know if further time was needed.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints department on 3 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 March 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. This was almost 20 working days outside of the timescales set out by its policy which was unreasonable as we’ve seen no evidence the landlord told the resident it needed further time to respond.
  3. The landlord’s policy confirmed its customers had a right to appeal if they were dissatisfied with the complaint response. As part of its appeal process, the landlord said it would contact the resident within 7 working days to discuss any issues highlighted in the complaint. If the complaint remained unresolved, it said it would arrange an appeal hearing within 20 working days and issue its response within 10 working days.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 5 April 2023. The landlord has not provided any evidence it contacted the resident within 7 working days from this date to discuss the outstanding issues. This was a failing as the landlord had not followed its process. However, it arranged the appeal hearing and issued its final response within the timescales set out by the policy.
  5. In conclusion, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1 of its process. The landlord also failed to follow all the steps set out in its appeals process. As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered it to pay £50 for the time and trouble the resident likely incurred because of these failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble likely incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the complaint.
      1. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
    3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and sets out its current position regarding both sets of work recommended by the acoustic surveyor as a first stage in reducing the noise.
  2. The landlord should continue to ensure that contractors appointed for specialist works have sufficient capacity and expertise to meet its repair requirements promptly.
  3. It should maintain clear and proactive communication with the resident, providing realistic timescales and updates when delays occur. Where works are refused, the landlord should document this clearly and explain the implications for resolving the issue.
  4. The landlord should review its contractor management processes to ensure contingency plans are in place when delays from external providers occur.