Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202316588)

Decision
Case ID	202316588
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

 

Background

1. In early 2023 the resident reported noise coming from water pipes, which the landlord confirmed was coming from the property above. She later reported further noise disturbance, including noise from the children living in the same property above. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of these issues.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise coming from the property above.
   2. The associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from the property above.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise coming from the property above

4. The landlord’s handling of the noise reports did not fully align with the expectations of its repairs or ASB policies. There were repeated communication failures, delays in progressing repairs, and a lack of proportionate action in response to the resident’s earlier noise reports. The landlord did not offer a proportionate remedy during its complaints procedure to put things right.

 

 Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling did not align with the expectations of its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices. There were delays at both stages of its complaints procedure, and it did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also did not offer an appropriate remedy during the complaints procedure to put things right.

 

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 its handling of the resident’s noise reports and the associated complaint. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. 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 24 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500, made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from the property above. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord review its processes and staff training related to its ASB policy and procedures. This would help ensure that staff follow the policy’s expectations, including completing action plans and considering options such as mediation at the earliest opportunity.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about: ongoing noise from the property above. She reported a potential water hammer from the pipes and noise from the children living in the property. She asked the landlord to obtain an injunction so repairs could be completed, as she understood there had been access issues. poor communication from the landlord. She said the lack of assistance caused her to feel that her mental health was being affected and asked for proactive updates going forward. a tenancy officer reportedly telling her to seek therapy after she disclosed childhood trauma. She said this was inappropriate and asked for a female tenancy officer to support her going forward.
30 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, in which it: apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. explained that the resident’s neighbour had a right to buy application in place and therefore it was not responsible for the repairs. It said that because the issue remained unresolved it had agreed to attend on 3 November 2023 to trace and repair the suspected water hammer issue. It said access was not given and it was arranging another visit. confirmed it had replied to all emails received from the resident but apologised for not seeking or sharing an update from the repairs team in September 2023, despite saying it would. said it did not have enough evidence to take formal action against the neighbour and encouraged the resident to continue engaging with it about the issue. It said it could not change the tenancy officer as officers were allocated to specific areas and suggested communicating through email as an alternative.
13 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: it was unclear what resolution the landlord was offering, and she queried the purpose of the ASB case. She explained that she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues, so she was no longer affected by noise. she expected ongoing communication and a timeline for when she could expect a resolution. she wanted the landlord to write to the neighbour, asking them to reduce noise in the evenings.
29 December 2023	The landlord told the resident that it needed more than its standard 20‑working‑day timescale to respond to her stage 2 complaint. It said it would provide a response by 26 January 2024.
29 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: the ASB case was opened to capture the concerns, actions, and outcomes relating to the noise the resident reported was disturbing her. the neighbour had been asked to keep noise levels at a reasonable level and had been told the consequences of not doing so. It said the evidence indicated the noise was general living noise, which it could not take formal action against. it would keep the resident updated on efforts to complete the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she did not feel that the landlord had taken sufficient action to resolve the noise disturbance.

 

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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from the property above
Finding	Maladministration

Noise from pipes

6. The evidence shows that the noise issues remained unresolved at the time the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in January 2024. We have also identified that there were further subsequent events that were so closely linked to the concerns raised during the complaints procedure that we have considered them as part of this investigation. Therefore, our investigation covers the period from January 2023 to November 2024.
7. On 25 January 2023, the landlord raised a repair order after the resident reported experiencing a “very loud” noise from water pipes in her property. By 16 February 2023, the landlord had identified that the noise was coming from the property above. However, it has failed to provide records showing when this assessment took place or what follow‑on action was identified. This falls short of our expectations that landlords maintain a clear audit trail of events through good record keeping.
8. Almost 2 months later, on 8 April 2023, the resident contacted her Member of Parliament (MP). She explained that the noise was affecting her mental health and the lack of action by the landlord caused her to feel ignored. The landlord’s records refer to the resident “chasing [the] repairs” during this period. The absence of any follow‑on works and lack of communication with the resident during this period likely contributed to her distress and inconvenience.
9. Throughout the period we have investigated, the resident made repeated reports about the impact the noise had on her mental health. While we acknowledge her comments about the impact on her health, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any impact on health. 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 the impact on health. We have not investigated this further. However, throughout this investigation we have considered the overall impact of any failings by the landlord and whether it gave due regard to the impact of the situation on the resident.
10. On 19 April 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case for the noise. The landlord defines ASB as “conduct that is capable of causing a nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress to any person living in, working in, or visiting the neighbourhood”. When the landlord explained its approach to the resident in May 2023, it said the ASB case had been opened as a mechanism to pursue enforcement action if the neighbour refused access to allow the repairs. The landlord was expected to complete an action plan with the resident at the outset, as per its ASB policy. This should have included specific actions to be taken, including whether enforcement action was realistic, and to explore avenues such as mediation, which its ASB policy encourages for neighbour disputes. However, the landlord failed to complete this plan, which did not align with the expectations of its ASB policy.
11. Effective communication is essential because it helps landlords reduce the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. In this case, the landlord’s communication about the action it was taking to resolve the noise fell short of these expectations. On 3 May 2023, the resident said that a plumber confirmed that parts would be ordered to resolve the noise coming from the pipes. However, she said that she was unsure how long it would take, which suggests that there had been a lack of communication to manage her expectations. The resident followed up with the landlord again on 10 and 18 May 2023 regarding the status of the works, which caused her some inconvenience.
12. On 18 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that the works would not be completed until approximately 44 working days after the repair order was raised on 5 May 2023. This was more than double its 20‑working‑day routine repair timescale, as per its repairs policy. While it is noted that additional time may be needed to complete certain repairs, the reason for this delay is unclear. The landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s frustration about the delays on 19 May 2023 further fell short of our communication expectations. The resident said that the noise was having a significant impact on her enjoyment of the property and led to her feeling suicidal. The landlord failed to respond to this, which likely contributed to the resident’s sense of being ignored and that it did not take the level of distress she was experiencing seriously.
13. On 5 July 2023, the landlord rescheduled the appointment to 10 July 2023, citing emergencies that had arisen. This further prolonged the completion of the repairs, which did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy obligations. This also likely added to the resident’s frustration given the delays already experienced. Although the repair records state the rescheduled appointment was attended, the resident reported on 15 August 2023 that the works to the pipes had not been completed. This led to the landlord re‑raising the repair order. This indicates that the landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of the repairs at the time. However, the lack of clear completion records means we cannot definitively confirm what the circumstances were.
14. Records from early September 2023 show that access to the neighbour’s property was required to inspect for a suspected water hammer, which was causing the noise. A repair visit was subsequently cancelled after an internal email noted that the property above was a leasehold and that a letter needed to be sent to the neighbour. We have seen no evidence of how this was established or how it was later confirmed that the neighbour was in fact a tenant with a right to buy application in place. The neighbour’s occupancy status would have been needed to decide on the most appropriate way to proceed. It is unclear why there was a lack of clarity around this at the time, which had some impact on the landlord’s handling of the reported noise issues. During this same period, the resident had contacted the landlord for an update. Despite an internal email requesting she be given one, the landlord did not do so. This was a further communication failure which likely contributed to her raising a formal complaint in October 2023.
15. Although the landlord said in its complaint responses that it had made attempts to access the neighbour’s property to complete the necessary works, it has not provided us with evidence of these attempts or the steps it took to move the repairs forward at the time. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether the actions it referred to were appropriate.
16. By February 2024, the repairs remained incomplete. On 11 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that a repair order had been incorrectly raised to address a water leak rather than the water hammer issue, and the works had therefore not been completed. The landlord acknowledged the error and rescheduled the appointment. While positive that it proactively took accountability for this, this error reflects a recurring failure by the landlord in maintaining adequate oversight of the necessary repairs. This likely added to the resident’s distress and reduced her confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
17. In the following months, the landlord took various steps to resolve the issue. This included inspecting the neighbour’s property, conducting asbestos checks, adjusting the pipework, and completing make‑good works. Some of these steps were delayed by recurring access issues with the neighbour’s property. However, there were also some oversight issues within its repairs service and unreasonable delays between follow‑on works, which further prolonged the resident’s distress. During this later period, the landlord’s communication with the resident about the progress improved by providing regular written updates, which showed learning from its earlier communication failures. This also likely reduced some of the uncertainty that she had previously experienced. The records indicate that the repairs were completed by around October 2024, which overall was an excessive amount of time for them to be resolved. We have seen no evidence that the noise caused by this issue continued after this date.

Noise from children and DIY

18. The resident first reported being disturbed by the noise from the children in the property above on 5 August 2023. She explained she had previously tried to approach the neighbour directly, but they had been unreceptive and threatened to contact the police if she did so again. Therefore, she asked the landlord for assistance.
19. The landlord recorded that it issued the neighbour with a noise warning on 12 August 2023. However, it has not provided us with a copy of the warning letter. It is also unclear whether the resident was told that this action had been taken, which would have been reasonable for it to have done under its ASB policy. Without evidence confirming otherwise, we can only conclude that it unreasonably failed to keep the resident informed of what actions it completed. Had it done so, it may have helped to reduce the resident’s uncertainty and distress during a period when she was already reporting significant distress.
20. On 2 February 2024, the resident reported again that the noise was still ongoing. On 12 February 2024, the landlord told her it would remind the neighbour of their tenancy conditions and the consequences of not adhering to them, which was proportionate. It also appropriately explained that its ability to take formal action was limited because the noise fell within what it considered as “general living noise”. The landlord then issued a further warning to the neighbour.
21. On 23 April 2024, the landlord contacted the resident for an update and suggested mediation as a holistic option to resolve the issue. While the resident expressed interest in this, there is no evidence the landlord responded when she asked for further information. This was a failure to meet the expectations of its ASB policy. Given the resident had been affected by the noise issues, the failure to explore mediation earlier was a missed opportunity for intervention. We welcome that the landlord revisited mediation in October 2024 and provided an information leaflet, but these steps could have been taken considerably earlier.
22. The resident reported further noise from the property on 1 June 2024. She described it as hammering or DIY activity at unsociable hours and asked the landlord for reassurance about what action was being taken. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to this. This reflects a consistent broader pattern of the landlord’s communication falling below our expectations in this case. It is likely to have contributed to the resident feeling ignored, which she reflected on in October 2024 in an email to the landlord during which she said she had raised the issue before but had not received a reply. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord subsequently discussed the matter with the neighbour and signposted the resident to the council’s community protection team. We have seen no further reports of the noise remaining ongoing after this.
23. Should the resident continue to experience issues with noise from the property above, she may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if she has not already done so. We cannot assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to these further issues. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, she may bring the matter to us as a new complaint.

Putting things right

24. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. It says that awards between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where failures have adversely affected a resident but have not caused any permanent impact. When ordering additional compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures in the landlord’s response to the reports of noise coming from the property above.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord had a published complaints policy that aligned with the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint. The policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to issue stage 1 and 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
26. On 17 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about the noise issues but stated that her submission was not a complaint, but a request for assistance. Given this clear statement, it was appropriate that the landlord did not register this as a formal complaint on that occasion. On 19 October 2023, she made further contact with the landlord about the concerns. Although she again said it was not a complaint, the nature and level of the dissatisfaction she expressed made it appropriate for the landlord to register this as a stage 1 complaint.
27. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the day it was received. It issued its stage 1 complaint response around 31 working days later, exceeding its 10‑working‑day timescale. The records do not explain the reason for this delay. The landlord also failed to communicate proactively with the resident about it during this period, which fell short of the transparency we expect. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 11 working days after the resident’s escalation request, exceeding its 5‑working‑day timescale. It issued its stage 2 response approximately 21 working days after acknowledgement, slightly beyond its stated 20‑working‑day timescale. The cumulative effect of these delays did not align with either the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code and is likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience.
28. As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident said a tenancy officer had responded inappropriately when she disclosed childhood trauma to them, and she described this as insensitive. We were not present during this exchange and have seen no supporting evidence that allows us to confirm what was or was not said. However, regardless of what occurred, the landlord was required to investigate and address all elements of the resident’s complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord addressed her request for a different tenancy officer but did not address her specific complaint about the officer’s response. This was a failure to comply with the Code. By not addressing this, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns seriously, which may have further reduced her confidence in its complaint handling.
29. Our remedies guidance (as referenced above) suggests that awards of up to £100 may be appropriate where the landlord has not fully acknowledged its complaint‑handling failings and has made no attempt to put things right. In ordering compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and lack of response to all elements of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

 

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. It also did not provide us with copies of the warning letters issued to the neighbour, which reduced the effectiveness of our investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of expectations around effective communication. There were periods where there was a lack of communication. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights identified that sensitive and tailored communication can reduce distress experienced by residents. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the findings set out in our spotlight report.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements, specifically relating to relevant timescales and addressing all elements of a resident’s complaint.

Repairs oversight

33. The landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of how its repairs service was delivered. It may wish to review its processes to ensure it can do so consistently, which could help it take a more proactive approach to resolving issues when they arise.