Octavia Housing (202518189)

Background

1. The resident lives in the basement flat of a converted property. He reported noise from the flat above in June 2024.The resident told the landlord the noise was worsening his mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord recognised some failings in its handling of the noise reports and noted lessons learned from these.
7. However, it did not make improvements on these throughout the complaints process and failed to recognise where it should have acted in line with its policies and carry out appropriate actions. Although it eventually visited to assess the noise, this was 9 months later and it did not evidence it had considered all the options listed in its procedures.
8. The compensation award was not sufficient given the continued adverse impact on the resident.
9. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failings and took proactive steps to prevent these reoccurring. The compensation offered reflected the adverse impact these failings had on the resident.

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.

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 have not investigated

10. The resident has referred to how the living conditions impacted his health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered this and his recorded vulnerabilities.
11. The resident complained about noise from the upstairs flat in June 2024 and received a stage 1 response in August 2024. This was around the time a noise abatement order was issued. As the matter did not complete the landlord’s complaint procedure at this time, we will assess the events from September 2024 onwards, with some reference to prior events for context.

     What we have investigated

12. The landlord’s neighbourhood relationships policy says it will work with residents to increase understanding and agree practical solutions. If the problem is noise transfer, it will look to agree reasonable hours for certain activities, and whether door closers or carpeting might help.
13. From September 2024 the landlord’s antisocial behaviour and neighbour dispute procedure was applicable. This states that, following a report of a neighbour dispute, it will assess within a maximum of 5 working days, discuss mediation and encourage contact with the neighbour. The landlord will contact the resident again 10 working days later and discuss solutions and seek permission to speak to the neighbour. It will offer mediation and intervention again at this point. It will follow up after another 30 working days and, if still unresolved but not classed as ASB, it will close the case and conduct a closure interview.
14. From June 2025 the landlord’s noise transfer procedure was applicable. This states the community safety team will complete an initial investigation to determine the cause and whether there is ASB. This includes taking reasonable steps to reduce the noise transference. It will lower the threshold for investigation if the resident’s vulnerabilities make them hypersensitive to noise. It will signpost to housing options if appropriate and explore insulation if the property has failed a noise test completed by its specialist external provider.
15. Environmental health issued a noise abatement order on the flat above in June 2024. This was after the resident’s reports of noise. In November and December 2024 his representative reported further noise problems and stressed the affect this was having on the resident’s mental health. He requested that the landlord consider reasonable adjustments and investigate what works it could do to resolve this. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to these emails. It should have acknowledged these within its ASB and neighbour dispute policy and assessed the report within 5 days. As it was aware of an active noise abatement order on the flat above, this would have been appropriate.
16. The resident complained in February 2025 when there was no response from the landlord. He was concerned it had said it would visit the neighbour following his previous complaint but had then written to him to say it had tried to contact her and sound transmission was problematic in old buildings. Were it closing the case, it should have conducted a closure interview in line with its policy.
17. The resident felt he had received no further support or communication and wanted a survey and an explanation of what the landlord could and could not do. Around this time, he reported slamming doors and loud TV noise from above. The landlord failed to respond over an extended period of time and the resident and his support worker regularly chased it as a result, likely causing distress and inconvenience to him.
18. The landlord called the resident and his support worker in May 2025 to discuss the complaint. It has not provided any notes from this call and despite the support worker repeatedly chasing for minutes of the meeting it did not provide these. This was unreasonable and the landlord failed to take the opportunity to create a formal action plan and repair trust with the resident.
19. In an internal email, the landlord said it had apologised for poor communication and asked the resident to use its general email address to ensure his correspondence was allocated correctly. It agreed it would visit the neighbour and offer compensation for its service failure. This would have been a reasonable step in assessing the noise in line with its neighbour dispute procedure. However, it failed to do so for a further 2 months, well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy.
20. The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint in May 2025 (2 weeks later). It appropriately acknowledged the lack of service and poor communication. It explained staff shortages and confusion over how to categorise the report led to delays. Nevertheless, it should have followed the ASB and neighbour dispute policy to assess and classify the case but failed to acknowledge this failing. Itdid not reference this policy, which would have given the resident timeframes to understand the process and what he should expect from the landlord.
21. The landlord appropriately accepted its lack of communication had escalated the matter and the resident had to seek support from an advocate. It offered compensation of £200 and confirmed it would arrange a home visit to assess the noise. This offer was in line with our remedies guidance for failings where there has been an adverse impact.
22. In June 2025 the resident escalated his complaint as he received no further communication from the landlord regarding the visit. He noted the continued failings. The resident and his advocate then continued to chase a response through various channels, including regular contact with the local MP. Internally, the landlord noted the complaint had not been allocated due to a misunderstanding over who was to escalate. This was due to the resident following its previous advice and sending the request to the generic email inbox. This shows a continued failure in communication and ownership. The landlord did note this failing internally and took reasonable steps to prevent reoccurrence.
23. In July 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a visit and set a new point of contact. This was a reasonable step. It considered the impact of its poor communication and provided a new point of contact to repair trust. Its stage 2 response later in July 2025 apologised for the delay. It appropriately upheld his complaint as the stage 1 response didn’t address all its failings. It was reasonable in accepting communication had not improved and it acknowledged the impact on the resident’s mental health.
24. The landlord confirmed it had arranged a visit with a surveyor to address the resident’s concerns. It offered an additional £300 compensation. The total £500 offered across both stages included £350 for its delays and poor communication throughout the process. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect the resident.
25. However, it failed to consider the noise in line with its more recent noise transfer procedure. For instance, it did not signpost to housing options or consider a noise test. It has provided no evidence on whether this case failed to meet its threshold, or that it considered lowering that threshold due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. This would have been a reasonable response in line with its procedure and allowed for a clear action plan and closure for the resident.
26. The landlord visited in August 2025, and the surveyor advised there were no structural issues. They found that, due to the type of building, works to the floor or ceiling would not guarantee a reduction in noise. It was appropriate to provide a detailed survey report. However, it has not provided any evidence that it discussed a move with the resident, in line with its noise transfer procedure, until January 2026. This was an inappropriate delay and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. It has also failed to provide evidence it considered other options referred to within its policy, such as door closers for the flat above. This was unreasonable as the resident repeatedly raised the issue of slammed doors.
27. The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2025. It stated the neighbours had fully carpeted their property, and it had not identified any reasonable actions to reduce noise transfer. It said the noise reported was not excessive. It reasonably offered noise cancelling devises, to provide noise monitoring equipment and noise diary sheets. However, it failed to follow its noise transfer procedure and refer for a specialist noise test. It met with the resident in January 2026, and he accepted its offer of help applying to the property transfer list and for noise cancelling equipment.
28. The landlord recognised its poor communication and delays through the complaints process. However, it failed to improve on this for several months after the stage 2 response, when it eventually took positive steps in confirming the outcome of the survey and reviewing its handling of the complaint.
29. The landlord did not appropriately reference or adhere to its policies and procedures for the duration of the complaint. It did not complete an assessment in line with those procedures for 9 months or consider all the practical options available. It has provided no evidence it considered mediation referred to in both procedures. Both of these required an initial assessment and the landlord to consider ‘reasonable steps’ to reduce noise transference. There is no evidence it considered reasonable steps in line with this. It provided no follow up visits to review the issues or closure interview in line with its policy.
30. We understand this complaint took place over the period of a merger where integration of policies and staff would have been difficult. However, the landlord’s failure to put things right and the continued adverse impact on the resident after the stage 2 response means we have ordered additional compensation. We have ordered £200 compensation to recognise the prolonged and adverse impact on the resident in line with our remedies guidance. We have also ordered a case review alongside the noise transfer procedure to ensure the landlord has considered all reasonable actions, including whether it should carry out a noise test.

31. Under our Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
32. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 56 days outside of the target time. It acknowledged this delay and tried to explain the cause. It phoned the resident 2 weeks prior to the stage 1 response and suggested arranging a home visit. It would have been reasonable to have booked this in prior to the written response. This would have prevented the continued failure to follow up on this offer. It did not take the opportunity to recognise the vulnerabilities of the resident, and the time and trouble caused to him in pursuing the complaint with the help of an advocate and MP.
33. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the timeframe of the policy. It recognised its failings and made reasonable attempts to explain the cause. It nominated a point of contact and noted some learning to prevent these issues occurring again. This was reasonable and considered the impact on the resident. It offered compensation of £150. This was made up of £100 for failing to complete the actions from the stage 1 response and £50 for its complaint handling delay. This was a reasonable offer and in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affect the resident.
34. Overall, the landlord recognised its failings in complaint handling and communication. It took steps to investigate the causes and communicate these with the resident to repair trust and make internal changes. It is on this basis that we make a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord has shown repeated failings to record, store and manage its information effectively. These weaknesses affected its ability to respond to the resident’s concerns and act in line with its policies. Evidence provided more recently in this case suggests that the merger has provided a structure that better supports information management. Continued focus on this should strengthen its service provision and allow it to provide more robust responses.

Communication

36. The landlord recognised its communication was poor but made no meaningful improvement. Persistent failures left the resident without clear updates or explanations. These weaknesses echoed our Repairing Trust Spotlight report, which identified poor communication as a key cause of distrust and complaint escalation. Continued neglect of communication standards prevented timely reassurance and undermined effective responses and resolution. Though more recent contact suggests improvement in this area, the landlord should be aware of the impact its poor communication can have on its relationships with residents.