Brighton and Hove City Council (202338270)

Decision
Case ID	202338270
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a 3 storey Victorian building. Her upstairs neighbour is a leaseholder who, with consent from the landlord, carried out some alterations in their property. Since the alterations, the resident says the noise transference has gotten worse, making it difficult for her to sleep. The landlord has inspected the neighbouring property and is satisfied the alterations have not contributed to noise transference. The resident is unhappy with its findings and how it handled the matter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of noise transference following alterations to a neighbouring property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference following alterations to a neighbouring property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference following alterations to a neighbouring property

4. The landlord did not follow its noise policy in terms of its communication of its findings. But it has acknowledged this failure, apologised and provided proportionate compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response outside the timescales of its complaints policy. This caused inconvenience to the resident and the landlord missed an opportunity 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 this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 23 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident additional compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 23 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Compensation We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation it previously offered for the inconvenience caused by the failure to communicate its findings. The finding of reasonable redress is based on this payment being made to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 March 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint which said: On 16 February 2023, the repair team visited her property and agreed that the increased noise transference was likely due to the open plan nature of the neighbour’s 2 rooms. The noise was now able to travel further. She was unhappy that the council approved the work because the walls had offered noise insulation. The council’s website explained it would not approve works if there was to be a noise nuisance to neighbours. She wanted help to get this resolved.
23 March 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response which said: It apologised the resident was experiencing this noise. It assured her that it gave consideration for how alterations can affect neighbouring flats. On this occasion it did issue consent for some limited alterations but denied it for others. It suspected that there might have been some alterations that did not receive consent. It had instructed the quality assurance manager (QAM) to inspect the neighbouring property to see if this had happened. If it had, it would then speak to the housing office to begin enforcement action against the leaseholder to ensure the works get rectified. It thanked the resident for bringing this to its attention.
27 April 2023	The resident escalated the complaint because: She had not heard from the landlord since the stage 1 complaint response. She wanted to know if the QAM had visited the property and was keen to move forward with this.
23 October 2023	The landlord issued a stage 2 response which said: It apologised for the breakdown in communication. It had spoken to the service team and asked them to contact the resident within 2 weeks to outline the outcome of the inspection and any required next steps. Awarded £100 for the time and trouble the resident had spent dealing with the matter.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us because she wants the building to be surveyed by a structural surveyor with the required qualifications to check the property has the required acoustic insulation.

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 reports of noise transference following alterations to a neighbouring property
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The resident has experienced noise transference from the property above since 2021. The scope of our investigation is on the resident’s reports of increased noise transference in 2023 following the alterations made to the neighbouring flat.
7. The landlord’s noise policy states that in dealing with a noise complaint it will contact the person responsible and tell them about the complaint. If the noise continues, then it would ask the resident to collect evidence and send out an officer to inspect.
8. Our role in investigating noise complaints is not to assess what action should be taken regarding noise. Instead, it is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the report is in line with its policy. We also assess whether the landlord has taken proportionate steps to investigate the reports consider what can be done to reduce the impact of any noise transference.
9. The resident first brought this matter to this organisation before the landlord. Once aware of the resident’s concerns, the landlord confirmed that the neighbour did obtain written consent for alterations made to their property. The resident states that on 16 February 2023, a repair team had attended the her home (for a separate matter) and agreed that the increased noise was because of the alterations.
10. The landlord explained it had instructed a QAM to check if there were any unauthorised alterations which could explain the noise transference. This was a reasonable action by the landlord, but it did not refer to its noise policy and set expectations for the resident, which would have been helpful. That way the resident would have more of an understanding of what the landlord could or couldn’t do about the issue.
11. Records show that a visit did take place, but it is unclear when this happened, which demonstrates poor record keeping. The QAM reported the lounge was largely carpeted with decent grade underlay. There had been the removal of the wall between the lounge and kitchen, but it did not believe these works caused any contribution to any substantial noise.
12. The landlord failed to communicate this to the resident, as on 27 April 2023, she escalated the complaint as she had not received any update on the situation. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, it was in no way clear about what the outcome had been when the QAM visited neighbour’s property. This added a further 2-week delay for the resident to be informed of the outcome.
13. We do not wish to dispute the resident’s concerns, and we acknowledge the reason for her noise complaint. However, aside from the failure to manage expectations, its overall actions were proportionate in visiting the property and it followed its own policy. But it would have been reasonable to cover off what the resident could do in the future and its communication could have been improved.
14. The landlord has apologised for the lack of communication and has awarded the resident compensation of £100. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. Our guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £100 where there was a minimal failure by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
15. Taking this into account, we are satisfied that the compensation awarded was proportionate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the specific failings as the impact was short lived and the delay had no impact on the outcome. It is unclear whether the landlord has paid the compensation. We have recommended that it do so if it has not already.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

16. Our Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
17. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on time, which was consistent with the Code. However, its stage 2 complaint response was 107 days outside the 20-working day timeframe. This was a significant delay, and led to the resident chasing updates, causing avoidable distress and inconvenience.
18. When it did respond, it did not apologise for the delay and it failed to use this as an opportunity to inform the resident that the QAM had inspected the property and found no concerns.
19. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance (as referenced above) which suggests awards in this range where there were failings by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but the failings were minor and/or would not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. We have identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record-keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Communication

21. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident, however it did apologise for this and gave appropriate compensation. It may want to look at how it will improve communication with residents going forward.