Thrive Homes Limited (202403389)

Decision
Case ID	202403389
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thrive Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	21 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported loud music, banging from a neighbouring property, and parking issues to the landlord. She said some residents were not parking in the allocated bays and were obstructing the entrance to the scheme. She said the landlord had done little to help. She said the noise from other residents was excessive, it disturbed her when she worked from home, and it had affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Noise nuisance.
   2. Parking issues.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking issues.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

5. The landlord’s approach to resolving the noise nuisance was inadequate and confusing at times. It did not act in line with its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy or confirm whether it was still investigating the loud music after it concluded the banging noise was not ASB. It did not provide the resident with information on sound proofing options, even though it said it would. It was not clear why it referred the resident to Environmental Health or what its next steps would be following contact with the ASB team. It did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempts to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking issues

6. The landlord acknowledged that it had not adequately kept the resident updated and that the process to implement parking enforcement had taken longer than expected. It offered compensation. However, this was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord made a revised offer of compensation outside of its internal complaints process, after the stage 2 response, which is not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 senior manager. 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 19 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £175 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. £150 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £100 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of parking issues. 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 19 May 2026
3	Order The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to confirm whether it would consider installing sound proofing. If should clearly set out the reasons for its decision. The landlord must also clearly set out how it will respond going forward if the resident has further issues with noise transference when a new resident moves into the vacant property.	No later than 19 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 September 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about parking issues within the scheme carpark and noise nuisance from neighbouring properties. She also said residents were leaving the front communal door open, and the grounds maintenance contractor had left mud all over her car. However, she did not escalate these issues to stage 2. She said some of the residents and their visitors were not parking in the allocated bays and were obstructing the entrance. She said she had been hearing very loud music and banging for around 3 weeks which was causing her a disturbance.
9 October 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had initially decided to monitor the parking situation before implementing parking enforcement. It said, following the resident’s reports and other complaints, it would consult with residents and start the process of implementation. It apologised and said it should have found a solution to the parking issues much sooner. It said it would keep the resident updated during the process. The landlord said it was investigating the reports of noise nuisance under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. It said it was satisfied that it had taken steps to resolve the issues. It said it would continue to investigate and would send the resident some diary sheets so that she could record any further incidents.  The landlord said it would install a door closer or a door stop to the communal door. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for the mud left on her car.
21 February 2024	The resident escalated the parking issues element of her complaint to stage 2. This was because the landlord had not yet implemented parking enforcement.
16 March 2024	The resident escalated the noise nuisance element of her complaint to stage 2 as the noise was continuing.
9 April 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said it had not proactively provided the resident with updates on the parking enforcement and it had not been clear about the timescale for implementation. It said it was working with the contractor to finalise a start date. It said it would write to all residents, issue permits, and install signage. It said it would provide the resident with a further update on 15 April 2024, and it would contact all residents by 22 April 2024. It said, it had agreed that the noise the resident was experiencing was not ASB or intentional. It said the building had concrete floors and insulated stud partition walls. It said it had complied with part E building regulations (sound) as it had submitted robust details to building control and it did not need to carry out impact testing. However, it offered to carry out a further airborne sound test as the noise was causing the resident distress. It said it would instruct a contractor and arrange an appointment by 22 April 2024. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its lack of communication about parking enforcement.
26 April 2024	The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £100 as it had not sent the parking letter by the agreed date.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to arrange a structural survey of her flat and increase the amount of compensation for distress and inconvenience.

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 response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us that the noise has affected her mental health. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

9. It is not our role to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances were a nuisance. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
10. The resident first reported excessive banging from a neighbouring flat on 30 August 2023. She also reported loud music on 4 and 5 September 2023. She told the landlord the music was so loud, it was disrupting her from working at home. The landlord responded on 5 September 2023 and said it would send a general email to the whole block as it did not know who was responsible. While this was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances, there is no evidence to show that the landlord opened an ASB case or that it took any further actions. This was not in line with its ASB policy which says it will agree an action plan with the resident and complete a risk assessment.
11. The landlord acted reasonably when it visited the resident on 16 October 2023 to see if it could witness the noise. It spent around 15 minutes in her property but did not hear any noise. The resident contacted the landlord at around 10:20am to report further noise. The landlord returned to the resident’s property at around 10:30am, but it was again unable to hear any noise.
12. The landlord visited both the resident and one of the neighbours on 26 October 2023. It found that the banging noise the resident could hear was the neighbour walking around her property next door. The landlord concluded that the noise was not ASB and said it would see if there was anything it could do about sound proofing. However, it did not confirm whether it would close the ASB case or whether it would continue to monitor the music levels. It also did not confirm when it would get back to the resident to provide an update on the sound proofing. This meant that it did not sufficiently manage her expectations.
13. Following enquiries from the resident, the landlord sent her a copy of the building regulations airborne sound tests results on 2 November 2023 in relation to her property. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the resident said she wanted the results of the impact testing, not airborne testing, as the noise was related to impact and banging.
14. The resident reported loud “blasting” music on 14 November 2023. Yet there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to her report, even though noise nuisance (over and above proportionate noise) is categorised as serious ASB within its ASB policy. This was not in line with its ASB policy which says it will make contact within 3 working days.
15. The landlord provided the resident with the building regulations certificate on 22 November 2023. It confirmed that it did not need to complete impact testing as building control had deemed it sufficient to submit “robust details” instead. However, the resident asked it to confirm that the building had achieved the required outcome for impact sound. The landlord confirmed on 7 December 2023 that it had met all building regulations requirements and it was satisfied that the noise was not due to a building defect. It also said that it had not had any other complaints, so it did not intend on arranging impact testing. It recommended the resident contact Environmental Health to report the noise. However, this was a confusing approach as the landlord had already confirmed that it thought the noise was not ASB or due to a building defect. It was unclear why it felt the resident should contact Environmental Health, and what this would achieve.
16. The resident reported music and banging from the neighbouring property on 16 March 2024. In response, the landlord’s ASB team contacted her on 20 March 2024 to discuss the noise and to agree an action plan. Its records show that when it did make contact, the resident said the noise was structural, not ASB. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord discussed or assessed the loud music. There is also no evidence to show that it tried to agree an action plan, or what the outcome of the discussion was in terms of next steps.
17. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on 26 March 2024. He noted that he could hear noise from the resident’s flat when a colleague walked up and down in the neighbours flat. He noted wall vibration when a colleague closed the neighbours balcony door and he noted that the wall did not appear to be a solid wall. He said he would need to gather information from the development team about the construction of the wall.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately confirmed the approved construction methods used to construct the party wall. It also appropriately offered to complete a further airborne sound test to reassure the resident and it said it would instruct a contractor by 22 April 2024. However, it did not acknowledge or recognise that it had not adequately dealt with the resident’s reports of noise, particularly the loud music, and that its approach was confusing at times. It did not acknowledge that it had not followed its ASB policy when the resident first reported the noise or when she reported further loud music in November 2023.
19. It did not recognise that it had not confirmed whether it had closed the ASB case, or whether it was still investigating loud music after it concluded the banging noise was not ASB, or that it had not provided information about possible sound proofing options. It also did not recognise that it was not clear about its reasons for referring the resident to Environmental Health, or what its next steps were following contact from the ASB team.
20. Following the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord did not arrange an airborne sound test by the specified date as the resident wanted an impact test. However, following further reports of noise nuisance from the resident it arranged for an acoustics contractor to test the acoustic performance of the party wall on 3 September 2024 (including impact testing). The contractor concluded that the wall complied with building regulations for airborne testing. It also concluded that the impact test result was good compared to building regulations impact criteria.
21. The resident has told us that her neighbour has since moved out, so she is no longer experiencing the noise. The landlord has also confirmed that the property next door is currently vacant. However, the resident has told us that she is concerned about what will happen when someone does move in.
22. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it fully put things right through the complaints process. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £175 compensation to be appropriate given the effect of the landlord’s failings on the resident, the confusion caused, and the lack of clarity. This is in line with the landlord’s schedule of compensation and our compensation guidance where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking issues
Finding	Service failure

23. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident has access to a designated parking space. The tenancy agreement defines the parking space as part of the premises.
24. The resident first informed the landlord that she was having issues parking at the scheme on 18 October 2022. She asked the landlord, during a visit sometime in April 2023, whether it had any plans to introduce parking permits. The landlord made internal enquiries but there is no evidence to show that it provided the resident with a response.
25. The landlord sent a letter on 19 May 2023 reminding all residents to park in allocated bays only. This was in line with its neighbourhood management policy which says it will work with customers to reduce irresponsible parking. The issues continued and the landlord sought internal advice on 29 August 2023. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not at least consider implementing parking enforcement at this point, as it had the option to do so within its neighbourhood management policy.
26. The landlord committed to implementing a parking solution and keeping the resident updated within its stage 1 response. It contacted all residents on 20 October 2023 to ask for feedback on its proposals by 5 November 2023, and it contacted a parking company on 24 November 2023 to ask for costs. The landlord updated the resident on 7 December 2023, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
27. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions between 8 December 2023 and 13 February 2024 asking for updates. The landlord responded on 14 February 2024. However, it did not give a clear response, provide sufficient reasons for the delay in the implementation of the parking enforcement, or sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations, which left the resident feeling frustrated.
28. The landlord provided all residents with an update on 2 April 2024. It said the parking company would visit the block and install signage no later than 7 May 2024. It said, following the installation, it would let the resident know when it would begin enforcement. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
29. In the stage 2 response, the landlord did appropriately acknowledge that it had not proactively updated the resident or been clear about when she could expect updates. It acknowledged that the process to implement parking enforcement had taken longer than originally expected. It also committed to updating the resident by 15 April 2024 and updating all residents by 22 April 2024.
30. The landlord did provide the resident with an update on 15 April 2024 and it provided all residents with an update on 23 April 2024. It also increased its offer of compensation to £100 on 26 April 2024, outside of its complaints process, which will be addressed under the complaint handling section of this report. Its contractors also installed the signage on 7 May 2024 and parking enforcement began once the signage was approved.
31. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
32. Given the observations above, we consider the offer of £100 compensation insufficient given the impact of the landlord’s failings, as the resident found it increasingly difficult to park. This includes the time the resident spent chasing the matter, and the time it took the landlord to resolve the issue. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with the landlord’s schedule of compensation and our compensation guidance where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

33. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022 and April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
34. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 September 2023 and sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 9 October 2023. Both the acknowledgement and the stage 1 response were within the timeframes set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
35. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 February 2024. It extended the due date of the stage 2 response on 21 March 2024. It sent the stage 2 complaint response on 9 April 2024, which was a day later than the confirmed extension date, although this did not cause any detriment to the resident. However, the landlord sent the resident a revised offer of compensation on 26 April 2024, outside of its complaints process, which was not in line with the Code.
36. In light of the above, we consider an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident to be appropriate. This is because, although the impact on the resident was minimal and did not affect the overall outcome, she had to wait until after the landlord’s internal complaints process for it to properly consider compensation.

Learning

37. The landlord may find it useful to consider our spotlight on noise complaints, time to be heard (October 2022), and our e-learning modules relating to ASB on our Centre for Learning.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient to conduct the investigation.

Communication

39. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, particularly in relation to the parking issues. When the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update, at times it did not respond or respond sufficiently.