First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202305558)

Decision
Case ID	202305558
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	First Choice Homes Oldham Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

The resident occupies a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has told us he suffers from tinnitus, mild hearing loss, and Hyperacusis. He has said increased levels of background noise negatively impact his hearing. On 8 November 2022 the resident complained that his property had inadequate sound proofing, resulting in significant noise from the flat above his property. He also complained about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and that the landlord had not provided additional support it had offered before the tenancy started. The resident has informed us that the noise issue is having a significant negative impact on his mental health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
The landlord’s handling of additional support for the resident.
The landlord’s handling of noise issues, including soundproofing.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould is outside of our Service’s jurisdiction.
There was a service failure by the landlord in its handling for additional support for the resident.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the noise issues.
There was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

We considered the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, its repair policy, and its antisocial behaviour policy. We found it was not required to soundproof the property. We determined that the landlord had not demonstrated it offered the resident the level of support it agreed when it offered the property. We found the landlord had failed to answer the resident’s complaint in the required timeframe, and it had not addressed all complaint points. We did not consider the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. This matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

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 this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of its management team. 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 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. 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 26 February 2026
3	Support order The landlord must review what support it can provide and discuss this with the resident. The landlord must also consider whether more in-depth support is needed, and if so, refer the resident to the relevant external organisations. The landlord must provide evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 26 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2022	The resident complained on 8 November 2022, raising concerns about: Noise from the flat above and inadequate soundproofing. A lack of support from the landlord, previously promised by the landlord. Significant damp and mould issues at the property. The resident reported he could hear everyday noise such as conversations, music, the television and footsteps from the flat above. The resident told the landlord he had a medical condition which made him sensitive to sound. He said the noise issue was impacting his mental health. He reported the damp and mould had affected his physical health and caused damage to his belongings, including expensive music equipment.
15 December 2022	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It stated that sound proofing was not a repair it offered. It said its Neighbourhood Coordinator would contact the resident to establish if the neighbour could do more to minimise noise. The landlord said it had arranged for an inspection into the cause of the damp and mould to be completed in January. It said following this it would contact the resident to arrange any repairs. The landlord said it offered support to high-risk residents during the first 6 months of their tenancy. It said it stopped providing this in October 2022, when the 6-month period expired. However, the landlord said its Neighbourhood Coordinator would contact the resident to identify if any additional support could be offered. The landlord apologised for a delay in sending its stage 1 complaint response, noting this was due to an error.
7 March 2023	The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). He said this was due to not receiving a response about the inadequate soundproofing. The resident said the noise issue had caused him extreme stress and anxiety and had significantly impacted his mental and physical wellbeing.
26 July 2023	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, stating it had visited the flat above, and all rooms were carpeted, excluding the bathroom and kitchen. From conversations with the resident and neighbour, the landlord determined the noise from the flat above was normal household noise. Therefore, it would not soundproof the property. The landlord said it may be beneficial for the resident to speak to his neighbour. It said the neighbour had expressed concern and wanted to know how they could change their normal activities to resolve matters. The landlord said it had classed the resident as high-risk during his application for the tenancy. It had offered support on several occasions to help the resident settle in. This support ended after 6 months. It said if more in-depth support was required, it would refer this to external agencies, such as the local authority. It apologised for any misunderstanding about the level of support it could offer. The landlord noted the resident was sensitive to noise and said it wanted to inspect the 4 properties within the block to determine if there was anything else it could do assist. This would include establishing if any other residents had concerns about noise. Finally, the landlord said it had discussed rehousing options with the resident and confirmed its lettings team could contact the resident if he wanted to discuss this further.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to soundproof the property. He also asked us to investigate the damp and mould, and level of support the landlord had offered.

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 damp and mould at the property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has asked us to consider his complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property. He has said this was present from the time he moved in and required significant work by the landlord to resolve. The resident has also told us the damp and mould caused significant damage to his personal belongings.
Our Service may not investigate complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s ICP. Unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and we are satisfied the landlord has not taken action in reasonable time.
The landlord has a 2 stage ICP. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in its stage 1 complaint response letter. However, it did not include this issue in its stage 2 response.
The resident has said this was a mistake by the landlord. He has also said the landlord intentionally omitted the complaint about damp and mould from its stage 2 response. The resident’s escalation email, dated 7 March 2023, states his escalation is due to not receiving a response about the soundproofing. There is no mention of the damp and mould in the escalation. Therefore, the landlord did not escalate that complaint point.
The complaint about damp and mould has not exhausted the landlord’s ICP. There is also no evidence of a complaint handling failure by the landlord in relation to the complaint points it escalated and addressed. Therefore, this complaint is outside of our Service’s jurisdiction and not something we can consider under this investigation.

Complaint	The level of additional support the landlord offered.
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained about the level of support the landlord has offered him. The resident has said he received several phone calls from the landlord at the start of his tenancy but no meaningful support.
The landlord has said it offers support for the first 6 months of a resident’s tenancy. It said that during this time, it contacted the resident several times to offer support. The landlord said if more in-depth support was needed, it would refer the resident to external organisations, such as the local council.
The landlord formally offered the resident the property on 11 February 2022. In the offer correspondence, the landlord stated what support it would offer. This included:
1. Mandatory tenancy training.
2. Mandatory support assessment and support plan.
3. New tenancy visits within 4 weeks.
4. Monthly visits/contact over the first 6 months of the tenancy.
5. Weekly reminders from the customer service centre provided there has been no other contact made that week.
Both parties agree the landlord contacted the resident several times at the start of the tenancy. What is in dispute is whether the landlord offered meaningful support when it contacted the resident. The landlord has said the support was offered by its Community Impact Team. However, it has not provided records to show what was discussed or offered at the time. It has also not responded to our request for further information about the support it offered. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have records of the support it offered, or whether it has decided not to provide this. In either case, this indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord has apologised for any confusion it caused in relation to the support available. While this was appropriate, it remains the landlord has not demonstrated it offered the resident the level of support it agreed to in its formal offer. So, we simply cannot conclude the landlord provided the support it offered.
We also note that in its stage 2 response letter the landlord said that it makes referrals to external organisations where more in-depth support is needed. We note the landlord assessed the resident as high-risk. This, and the resident’s comments about a lack of support, indicate more in-depth support may have been needed. The landlord has not demonstrated it considered this or referred the resident to external agencies.
Taking the above into account. We have made a finding of service failure in relation to the level of support the landlord offered the resident. To remedy matters, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss what support it can offer. We have also ordered the landlord to consider whether the resident requires in-depth support and should be referred to external agencies.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of noise issues, including soundproofing.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident has complained about noise from the flat above. He reports that the property has inadequate sound proofing and is not compliant with part E of the Building Regulations (the Regulations). The resident has reported the existence of a cavity between the property and the flat above. He says this amplifies the sound of everyday activities to an extreme level. The resident has said he told the landlord about his noise sensitivity before agreeing to the tenancy. He reports that the landlord confirmed the property had adequate sound proofing and that additional funding would be available if there was an issue with noise. The resident has also told us about the significant impact the noise has had on his mental and physical health.
We are sorry to hear about the significant negative impact the noise has had on the resident, and we appreciate this is a difficult time for him. Our role is to investigate whether the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in its handling of his complaint about the noise. To determine this, we have considered the landlord’s repair obligations, the evidence provided, and what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the landlord is required to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. It must also maintain installations, such as heating, water and electricity. The Act does not require the landlord to make improvements to the property. Ordinary noise transference between the resident and neighbour’s properties is not a disrepair issue which the landlord is required to remedy under the Act. Additionally, the installation of soundproofing would be an improvement to the property, rather than a repair. We are therefore satisfied the landlord is not obliged to soundproof the property under the Act.
The landlord’s repair policy further details the landlord’s repair responsibilities and service standards. There is no obligation under the landlord’s repair policy for it to carry out improvements, such as soundproofing, to the property.
The resident has told us that the property does not meet the requirements set out in part E of the Regulations. It is not for our Service to determine whether the property complies with the Regulations. This would usually be for the local council to establish. In any case, it appears the resident did not raise his concerns about the Regulations with the landlord when making his complaint. As such, the landlord has not considered this. We may not consider a complaint where the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond. So, this issue falls outside of the scope of this report. The resident is free to raise his concerns about the Building Regulations with the landlord, if necessary.
The resident has also told us that there is a cavity between the property and the flat above. He has said this amplifies sound from the flat above to an extreme level. We have not received evidence of this cavity, nor its impact on noise transference between the properties. Again, it is unclear whether the resident has raised his concerns about the cavity with the landlord and we cannot be satisfied it has had the opportunity to consider this. This issue is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.
In some circumstances, a landlord may respond to noise issues under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will respond to noise-related ASB. However, the policy explicitly states that household noise due to everyday living is not ASB. The resident has said it was unfair for the landlord to characterise the noise as ordinary living noise. The noise issues the resident reported included being able to hear footsteps, conversations, music and the television from the flat above. This type of noise would not normally amount to ASB under the landlord’s policy. Therefore, the landlord was not required to take enforcement or other action, such as soundproofing the property, under its ASB policy.
The resident has told us that the landlord misled him about the soundproofing. He said he discussed his noise sensitivity with the landlord before agreeing to the tenancy. To evidence this, the resident has provided correspondence dated 23 July 2021. This shows the resident told the landlord about his noise sensitivity. He also said he felt he needed somewhere quiet to live, which met the Regulations for soundproofing. However, we have not received evidence to show the landlord discussed the level of soundproofing with the resident or that it stated additional funding would be available. In the absence of evidence, we simply cannot conclude that the landlord acted unfairly or unreasonably in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Taking the above into account, we appreciate the significant impact the noise has had on the resident. However, based on the evidence provided we are satisfied that the landlord’s decision to not soundproof the property is fair and reasonable.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has not provided a copy of its complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. So, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint against the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) relevant at the time. This requires the landlord to answer complaints within specific timeframes.
Complaints at stage 1 of the landlord’s procedure must be answered within 10-working days. If the landlord requires an extension of more than 20 working days, this should be agreed by both parties.
The resident complained on 8 November 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 December 2022. It took the landlord 28 working days to answer the complaint. We cannot see an extension was agreed between the parties. This delay was a service failure by the landlord which it has apologised for in its stage 1 response letter.
Complaints at stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure must be answered within 20-working days. If the landlord requires an extension of more than 10-working days, it must agree this with the resident.
The resident has provided evidence which shows he escalated his complaint on 7 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023. It took the landlord 98 working days to send its stage 2 response. We cannot see that an extension to the deadline was agreed. This was a service failure by the landlord.
In line with the Code, the landlord must address all complaint points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The resident complained that he had told the landlord about his noise sensitivity before moving into the property. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. However, it is not clear the landlord considered the resident’s concerns, as these were not addressed in its stage 2 response letter. This is a complaint handling failure by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the delay at stage 1 of its process and apologised for this. Overall, we do not consider this proportionate. The landlord’s failures were not limited to a single delay. Its failures included:
1. Avoidable delays at both stages of its complaint process.
2. A failure to address all points raised by the resident in the stage 2 response.
Our remedies guidance states that compensation should reflect the severity of the failure and its impact. In this case, the landlord’s apology does not recognise the cumulative delays and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. Considering this, we have found service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100. This is more proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for failures identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not demonstrate what support it offered the resident. This limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it met its commitments. To improve matters, the landlord could keep clear records of contact, including what support was discussed and offered. Where the landlord offers support at the start of a tenancy, it should keep clear records to ensure it can demonstrate each element is completed.

Complaint handling

We identified delays at both stages of the complaint. The landlord could improve its monitoring of complaint deadlines. This would help ensure the landlord provides timely responses in line with the Code.