Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202440999)

Decision
Case ID	202440999
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	22 June 2026

Background

1. The leaseholder lives in a ground floor flat, which was a semi-detached home that was converted to 2 flats in the 1980s. He purchased the property in September 2023 and started raising concerns about noise transference from the upstairs resident (who is a tenant of the landlord), which worsened after the neighbour removed his carpeting in April 2024. He raised a formal complaint in May 2024 about the landlord’s lack of action about the noise transference.

What the complaint is about

2. The leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of noise transference.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved its failures in its handling of:
   1. Reports of noise transference.
   2. The associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of noise transference

4. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately within the limits of its responsibilities. It took positive and reasonable steps to explore solutions to the noise issue. While there were some failures in communication, these were acknowledged and appropriately compensated.

 

 

The handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, as it delayed acknowledging the stage 2 escalation and issued its final response around 5 months late without properly extending the timescale. However, it acknowledged these failures, apologised, and offered compensation that was proportionate to recognise the inconvenience caused.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay £325 in compensation, as previously offered, made up as follows: £50 for its handling of concerns of noise transference. £275 for complaint handling failures.
We recommend the landlord investigate the report of loose floorboards in the neighbour’s flat and take appropriate action, as necessary.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 May 2024	The leaseholder raised a complaint. As well as raising concerns about a water pipe repair, which do not form part of this investigation, he said: There was no soundproofing between his flat and the flat above, and he could hear everyday living noise, and this was affecting his mental health. He wanted to know if the landlord was required to provide more insulation between the flats based on fire safety rules.
22 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The properties were converted to building regulations at the time of conversion and there would have been a level of insulation laid between the floors and fire protection rules would have been followed. It suggested he refer to the survey he had when he purchased the property to see if noise transference was flagged. As he was a leaseholder, it would not look to carry out works as it would for a tenant who was renting. The neighbourhood coach had spoken to both parties about the noise transference and would explain what he could look to achieve in his role.
30 October 2024	The leaseholder requested for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He said there had not been progress made on the noise transference issue.
30 April 2025	This service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the leaseholder.
16 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:  It agreed there may be things that can be done in the neighbour’s property to help improve noise transference. It confirmed it was working with the neighbour to try to come up with a solution. It acknowledged it did not communicate well with the leaseholder about soundproofing following the stage 1 response. The stage 2 response was significantly late, and it apologised for this. It offered £325 in compensation, made up of: £50 for lack of communication about the complaint issues. £275 for complaint handling failures and delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The leaseholder brought his complaint to us because he does not feel that the insulation between the 2 properties is sufficient. He wants the landlord to:  Agree in writing that the property is not sufficiently insulated. Agree to install insulation to minimise the noise transference and allow him to have privacy in his home. Repair the loose and damaged floorboards in the neighbour’s property to stop the squeaking. To add a requirement to its tenancy agreements for residents who live above other properties to have sufficient underlay and carpets to minimise noise transference.

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 handling of reports of noise transference
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. It is not disputed that the leaseholder is affected by noise from the property upstairs, which the landlord also acknowledged. We understand this has affected his health and wellbeing. The key issues are whether the landlord is responsible for taking action to address the noise transference, as well as its overall management of the leaseholder’s concerns about this.
7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the flats were converted in line with building regulations at the time of and it was not required to improve soundproofing. This was accurate. Responsibility for improvements, including soundproofing, sits with the leaseholder under the terms of the lease.
8. The landlord acknowledged that the absence of carpeting in the neighbouring property would increase noise transference. As the neighbour’s tenancy agreement does not require carpeting, the landlord correctly confirmed it could not require this.
9. Despite this, the landlord inspected both properties to explore ways to reduce noise and at the leaseholder’s request, considered whether fire safety requirements would necessitate additional insulation. It did not identify any fire safety concerns and communicated this to the leaseholder. It also explored practical options, including a Council scheme for carpeting, which the neighbour initially accepted and then declined, and suggested the leaseholder could install a sound-insulated false ceiling. Whilst we recognise that this was not the outcome the leaseholder was seeking, these were positive and reasonable steps to try to assist.
10. The landlord maintained contact with the leaseholder although it acknowledged that there were some gaps in communication. In its stage 2 response, it apologised and offered £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by these gaps. This amount is reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for service failures relating to communication and the distress and inconvenience caused. We have recommended the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.
11. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the leaseholder reported that the floorboards in the neighbouring property were causing increased noise as they were loosening. If the floorboards require repair, this would be the landlord’s responsibility. We have recommended that the landlord investigate this and take appropriate action, as necessary.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. The Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s complaints policy say it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where additional time is required, the landlord should clearly explain this and not extend timescales by more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
13. The landlord responded within the required timeframe at stage 1. However, the leaseholder’s first request to escalate the complaint was not acknowledged, and he had to make a second request. From the initial escalation request, the landlord took 12 working days to acknowledge it, which was outside of the 5 working day requirement.
14. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 15 November 2024 but did not issue its stage 2 response until 16 May 2025, 6 months later and following contact from this Service. This was significantly outside of the 20 working days timeframe, and the landlord did not formally extend the deadline in line with its policy.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged these complaint handling failures, apologised and offered £275 in compensation. This was made of £50 for delays caused by a change in case handlers, £25 for the late acknowledgement of the escalation, and £200 for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
16. Where a landlord has acknowledged failings, we consider whether its actions were sufficient to put things right. In this case, the £275 offered is slightly above the range suggested in our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures that have a significant impact. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the failures, apology, and offer of compensation are therefore reasonable to put things right. We have recommended the landlord pay the £275 compensation it offered.

Learning

17. Our Spotlight Report on noise complaints highlights the impact of flooring on noise transference and recommends that landlords consider including provisions about hard flooring in tenancy agreements. The landlord may wish to review its tenancy agreements for future lettings with properties below to consider whether additional provisions could help reduce noise transmission.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

18. There were 5 different complaints handlers on this case, which contributed to the delays and complaint handling failures. The landlord could learn from this and may want to consider strengthening its handover processes during staff changes, so that outstanding complaints are clearly tracked and progressed without delay.