Midland Heart Limited (202233469)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom first floor flat. She complained to the landlord about noise from the flooring in the flat above.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

4. The landlord accepted it delayed in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It apologised for this and its poor communication. It offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint as a stage 1. It did not provide evidence to show it responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale. It acknowledged complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and offered compensation, which was proportionate.

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said the noise nuisance had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. Our role is not to determine whether noise nuisance occurred but to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. The resident said the noise nuisance started in 2020 with a previous tenant in the flat above and is still ongoing. This investigation focuses on the complaint the resident made in March 2023 up to the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2023. Any reference to events after this is for context and information purposes.
8. After the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident made further complaints to the landlord about the ongoing noise. It closed her most recent complaint in June 2025. If she remains unhappy with its final response, she can bring her complaint to us to consider.We have not considered the landlord’s handling of the further complaints she made.

What we did investigate

9. In February 2023 the resident reported ongoing noise from the flooring in the above flat. The landlord said her neighbour would need to report the flooring if it was damaged. It logged an incident for her to report any further issues but said it was general living noise and not anti-social behaviour (ASB). It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion from her report.
10. Throughout March 2023 the resident complained about further noise and the landlord told her to use a noise app to record the noise. She explained her medical condition made it difficult to press record during the early hours when the noise was worse. She explained she had undergone brain surgery and needed adequate rest. The landlord raised a job to assess her neighbours flooring and said it would consider soundproofing. It repeated the noise was not ASB but was general living noise. However, it opened an ASB case and wrote to her confirming this.
11. The landlord inspected the neighbours flooring on 18 April 2023 and found it was defective and needed to be replaced. It returned on 29 April 2023 to complete the work, but its records do not say what was defective or what work it did. The operative’s poor workmanship caused the resident further inconvenience because it nailed into a pipe which caused a leak in her bathroom.
12. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord the noise had not improved. The landlord told her it would arrange another inspection but did not. She reported more noise in June 2023, but it did not take further action until August 2023 when it completed a further inspection.
13. The inspection found there were no floor coverings in the flat above, which caused the noise. The landlord said it was a tenancy issue, not repairs. In its stage 2 response dated 5 September 2023, the landlord said it aimed to complete floor coverings in her neighbour’s flat within 4 weeks. The landlord told us it completed the carpet work in September 2023 but did not specify when. However, its records show the resident contacted it for an update on 3 October 2023 because it had not started the work. It told her it aimed to fit the carpet that week.
14. During her complaint, the resident also reported an unauthorised person carried out work on her ceiling and charged her for it. In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised her to report the matter to the police and asked for further information, as it had no record of it attending. Following its stage 2 response, it assessed her ceiling and found it was safe but offered to finish it to a good standard. It told her she would have to move her furniture for it to complete the work, but the resident said she was unable to. It offered to move her furniture if she signed a disclaimer but explained it could not place it back. The landlord said she refused to sign.
15. The resident said the carpet improved the noise but did not completely resolve the issue. She said she still sleeps in her living room because the noise is worse in her bedroom as the neighbour’s kitchen or bathroom is directly above, which is not carpeted. She feels the landlord did not complete adequate work to the floorboards or fit suitable underlay. It told her it did all it could and her noise recordings showed it was daily living noise. It said she lived in an old building where noise may travel further.
16. Following its stage 2 response, the resident made further complaints to the landlord about the ongoing noise. It re-opened her case in March 2024 and opened further cases in August and November 2024. It completed more noise tests and work on her neighbours flooring, who subsequently refused for any further work to be done at their property. It explored soundproofing, but its surveyor found it was not possible to add additional installation for safety reasons. It also gave her rehousing advice and continued to contact her to complete the outstanding work to her ceiling.
17. As a resolution, the resident wants to move to a different property. We cannot tell a landlord to move a resident or comment on how it should allocate vacant properties. We recommend it continues to support her in relation to rehousing options.
18. The resident told the landlord the noise had a significant impact on her and explained the impact it had on her daily life including on her mental and physical health. The landlord gave her its insurer’s details at stage 1. At stage 2, it said it would contact her to ensure she had adequate support and consider referrals. However, it did not provide evidence of any follow‑up action and has no recorded vulnerabilities for her. We have recommended it contacts the resident about this.
19. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. Its communication was poor which caused the resident time and trouble contacting it for updates and complaining. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the service the resident received. It said it had taken learnings for the future and offered £720 compensation.  In its stage 2 response, it offered an additional £1000 which included £250 for complaint handling delays. Its total offer of £1470 is in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings which had a severe long-term impact on the resident. It has provided confirmation of payment to the resident. In view of this, we find the compensation proportionate to the failings identified, and it offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

20. The landlord did not provide a copy of its complaints policy in use at the time the resident complained. For the purposes of our assessment, we have assessed against our 2022 complaint handling code (the Code) which was applicable at the time.
21. The resident initially complained in March 2023, but the landlord failed to acknowledge her complaint at stage 1. This caused the resident time and trouble contacting us. Following our intervention, it issued its stage 1 response.
22. The landlord does not have details of the resident’s complaint escalation including when she escalated her complaint or its acknowledgement. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to determine if it sent its stage 2 response in accordance with the Code.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered £250 for delays in its complaint handling and poor communication. It made a subsequent payment of £50 in addition for its delayed response. Its total offer of £300 for complaint handling is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident. In view of this, we find the compensation offered was proportionate to the failings identified and it offered reasonable redress.

Learning

24. The landlord should consider having a separate policy or strategy to manage reports of household noise as recommended in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise complaints in October 2022.

Knowledge information (record keeping)

25. The landlord should maintain full complaint records. Without records of the initial complaint, the escalation, and acknowledgments, it cannot evidence compliance to the Code or its own policy.
26. The landlord did not have full inspection reports following its inspections in April and August 2023. We expect landlords to have a full record of its inspections showing what issues were found and what follow on work was completed.

Communication

27. The landlord should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates.