Delta Housing Limited (202443980)

Decision
Case ID	202443980
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that her neighbour was causing noise nuisance late at night. This included noting she could hear them walking around, running up and down the stairs and banging in the kitchen. She said the noise affected her sleep.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and managed her expectations in relation to the action it could take. It did not, however, offer the resident mediation or respond to her reports of noise nuisance made on 3 January 2025.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the guidelines set out in its complaints policy.

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 27 March 2026
2	The landlord pays £50 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of noise nuisance. This must be paid directly to the resident.	27 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 January 2025	The resident made a complaint and said the landlord did not take her reports of noise nuisance seriously and she wanted to move.
20 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
3 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: It received a report of noise nuisance from the resident on 9 December 2024. It spoke to her neighbour on the same day and asked them to be mindful of noise levels. It also offered the resident use of its noise app but this was declined. It told the resident on 11 December 2024 that the noise was classified as everyday noise and was not considered antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident reported further noise nuisance on 16 December 2024 and 17 December 2024. She told the landlord on 19 December 2024 that the noise occurred late at night. The case was closed but could be reopened if the resident provided evidence through the noise app. It had followed the correct procedure by speaking to her neighbour and offering her use of the noise app.
7 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request.
11 February 2025	The landlord told the resident it would respond to her complaint within 20 working days.
4 March 2025	The landlord issued its final complaint response and said: It asked the resident to use the noise app because it needed to determine the noise levels. This would support any conversations it had with her neighbour. Based on its conversation with the resident, it had been established that neither her son or her were confident using mobile phone technology. It should have discussed the value of using the noise app and offered support with using it earlier. It was unlikely it would be able to take enforcement action against her neighbour and it should have discussed using mediation as an option with her. It would arrange to visit the resident to discuss the noise app and using mediation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told this Service that her neighbour smoked cannabis and the smell filtered into her flat. She said she was no longer staying in the property at night as she could not sleep when she stayed there.

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 nuisance.
Finding	Service failure

7. It is noted the resident has raised concerns regarding her neighbour smoking cannabis and the smell filtering into her flat. These concerns have not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because the issues did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint and were not considered by the landlord in its formal complaint responses. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.
8. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported noise nuisance occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
9. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Noise is a potential hazard covered by the HHSRS and the landlord is required to consider if a noise problem amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
10. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 9 December 2024 that her neighbour was causing noise nuisance late at night. This included noting she could hear them walking around, running up and down the stairs and banging in the kitchen.
11. The landlord told the resident she should expect some level of noise and noted her neighbour may have different sleeping patterns to her and her son. It offered her the use of its noise app and said it would speak to her neighbour. This was consistent with Its ASB policy. This says it will talk to the person who is alleged to be responsible for the nuisance and provide residents with access to its noise app.
12. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer to speak to her neighbour but said she did not want to use the noise app. This meant the landlord was unable to gather evidence to gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem.
13. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour on the same day. This demonstrated it took her concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her. The resident’s neighbour said her property was fully carpeted and any noise that was created was everyday noise. She also said her neighbour was rude when she approached her and her son banged on the ceiling. The landlord asked the resident’s neighbour to be mindful of making any noise.  The landlord’s decision to take no further action was reasonable in the circumstances given there was no robust evidence of noise nuisance.
14. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 11 December 2024. This included noting that people lived different lifestyles. It asked the resident to ensure her son was respectful towards her neighbour. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. This says it will work with residents to resolve personal disputes.
15. The landlord told the resident it would close the case. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with its neighbourhood policy given there was no evidence of noise nuisance. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against residents for noise that is considered everyday household noise. The landlord said it would reopen the case if the resident provided evidence through the noise app.
16. The resident told the landlord on 19 December 2024 that her neighbour continued to cause noise nuisance. This included noting they walked around and opened and closed cupboards late at night. The landlord confirmed the case had previously been closed because the noise was deemed to be everyday noise. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. It also said it needed evidence to confirm if the noise was severe and asked the resident to use the noise app. This was appropriate. The resident refused to use the noise app.
17. The landlord completed a risk assessment. This was appropriate. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. It says landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. The risk was identified as low.
18. There is no evidence the landlord offered the resident mediation. This was a failure and was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. Mediation is a proven method for successfully resolving disputes between neighbours.
19. The landlord closed the case on 23 December 2024. It said this was because the noise was deemed to be everyday noise. It said it would reopen the case if the resident provided evidence. The landlord’s decision to close the case was consistent with its ASB policy and neighbourhood policy.
20. The resident reported further noise nuisance on 3 January 2025. This included noting she could hear her neighbour walking around, running up and down the stairs and banging in the kitchen. She said the noise was disturbing her sleep.
21. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. This says it will contact residents within 5 working days to determine the nature of the problem and whether it constitutes ASB. This was a failure and led to the resident making a complaint on 14 January 2025. She said her landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and she wanted to move.
22. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2025.
23. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
24. In this case, the landlord confirmed it could not take any further action. It said this was because it considered the noise was everyday noise and this was not a breach of the tenancy agreement. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It also noted it had offered the resident the use of its noise app as the device could capture noise levels that were loud enough to be considered a nuisance. It said it would reopen the case if the resident decided to use the noise app. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord did not make reference to its mediation service.
25. The resident told the landlord on 3 February 2025 that her neighbour continued to cause noise nuisance. This included noise from the washing machine and cups clinking in the kitchen. She also said her neighbour swore at her and the police did nothing when she reported the matter. Her son said they were not prepared to use the noise app and he did not understand why they needed to provide evidence.
26. The landlord confirmed evidence was required to progress matters and it would establish if noise monitoring equipment could be installed. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence it provided the resident with an update regarding the noise monitoring equipment.
27. The landlord noted on 4 March 2025 in its final complaint response that it asked the resident to use the noise app because it needed to determine the noise levels and this would support any conversations it had with her neighbour. It said it was unlikely that it would be able to take enforcement action given the nature of her reports. This provided clarity.
28. The landlord noted it should have offered the resident support with using the noise app earlier and discussed mediation as an option with her. It said it would arrange to visit the resident to do this. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the identified service failures. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
29. Taking account of all the circumstances of this aspect of the resident’s complaint, a finding of service failure has been made.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

30. The resident made a complaint on14 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on20 January 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within5working days.
31. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2025. This was within the 10-day target set out in its complaints policy.
32. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 February 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
33. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 4 March 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
34. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

36. Overall, we did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s communication made in this case. Of note however is the absence of communication to the resident regarding its mediation service