Hilldale Housing Association Limited (202405059)

Decision
Case ID	202405059
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hilldale Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a supported living block of flats with care workers on site. In December 2023 she told the landlord her neighbour above was tapping and stomping around. In March 2024, she complained to the landlord about its response to her noise reports and her concerns about her standard of care.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concern about her standard care.
2. Reports of noise from her neighbour.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The resident’s concern about her standard of care is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to reports of noise

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise by opening an ASB case and speaking to her and her neighbour. However, it failed to record all phone calls and visits made and to explore other ways to deal with the noise in line with its ASB policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not fully comply with 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 provided by a 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 16 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of noise. It must pay her directly and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 April 2026
3	Further action order The landlord must contact the resident about her reports of ongoing noise from her neighbour and decide what, if any, support it can offer her.	No later than 16 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the noise from the flat above stating she could not tolerate it. She said she had reported the noise previously, but it had not resolved the issue.
21 March 2024	The landlord replied at stage 1. It did not uphold the complaint. It said the resident needed to provide evidence of the noise before it could act. It said she could use a noise monitoring device to record the noise and her housing officer could help with this.
21 March 2024 to 12 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she disagreed with the outcome. She said she did not want to use a noise monitoring device as she did not think her neighbour was a criminal. The landlord visited the resident to discuss her complaint.
2 May 2024	The landlord replied at stage 2 and did not uphold her complaint. It said the reported noise did not meet the threshold to take further action against her neighbour. It said it offered the resident a different property in the block with lift access and to have a noise recording device installed but she declined. It said it told her to contact the local council about her reports of noise and to keep a record of dates and times.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the noise from her neighbour was ongoing. She confirmed the landlord’s offer of a move to a different flat in the block but said this would not meet her medical need for a ground floor flat. She wanted to be moved to a bungalow to resolve the complaint.

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 concerns about her standard of care
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We are not free to investigate all complaints referred to us. What we can and cannot consider is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Scheme says we can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions or what its agents did (or did not do) on its behalf. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over.
The resident’s care is received from a care provider separate to the landlord. This means we have no power to investigate this part of the complaint. If the resident wishes to pursue this element of her complaint, she could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to ask for advice.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her 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. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident also asked to be moved to a bungalow as an outcome of this case, however, this is not something we are able to order. This is because this would be subject to the availability of properties and the priority of other applicants.

What we did investigate

On 20 December 2023, the resident told the landlord her neighbour above was making noise.The landlord opened an ASBcase the same day.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take prompt action and use a range of tools to resolve ASB including mediation, advice, verbal or written warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC). It says it categorises complaints as low, medium or high. It also says for all 3 categories it will agree when it closes a case and send a closing letter to all parties. The landlord has not provided any evidence the case was categorised in line with its policy when it opened the case.
On 4 January 2024 the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. It discussed the reported noise, asked him to be mindful of the resident below and reminded him thathe was responsible for any visitors to his flat.
On 20 January 2024, the landlord visited both the resident and her neighbour to discuss her reports of noise. It said it spoke to her neighbour about being considerate to others about noise levels at night. There is no evidence to confirm if any actions were agreed as a result of these visits. This is a record keeping failure.
On 17 February 2024, the landlord said due to continued reports of noise by the resident, it told her to report noise to the care staff so they could record the dates and times. It also said the care staff should advise her to contact the local council so she could get a recording app to keep a record of the noise.
On 7 March 2024, the resident submitted a complaint about the noise. On 11 March 2024, the landlord told the resident it helped her neighbour understand the impact of noise and said he had put down rugs in his property. The landlord recorded it would close the ASB case. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it was closing the ASB case or agreed the action with her. This was a failure of the landlord.
On 21 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed the actions it had completed to try and resolve the noise issue. The landlord opened an ASB case on her reports of noise, but it did not categorise the case or assess its actions against its ASB policy. It told the resident to report noise to care staff and asked them to arrange noise-recording equipment. It was unreasonable of the landlord to pass the responsibility to the care staff, and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint because she disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She continued to report stomping noises from the neighbour highlighting the disturbance it was having on her.
On 2 May 2024, the landlord replied at stage 2 of the complaint process. It said it had offered to install a noise recording machine at her property which wasa reasonable offer. However, it did not clearly explain in its response how it addressed her reports of noise and how it managed the ASB case. It offered her another property in the block but did not recognise her need for a ground floor property. This is likely to have added to her frustration.
Our role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we consider if the landlord has applied our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord told us there was a lack of evidence because it did not record notes of phone calls and visits with the resident and her neighbour for the ASB case. It has also confirmed the improvements made to its ASB processes as a result.
In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise and opened an ASB case. It visited the resident’s neighbour and worked to help him understand the impact of his noise. However, it asked the resident to report the noise to care staff, and this was not in line with its policy. It did not offer the resident other ways to deal with the noise such as mediation or ABCs, and it closed the case without providing evidence it discussed this with her. It failed to record all its actions taken on the ASB case and what it categorised the case as, in line with its policy. This caused her distress and inconvenience. It did not recognise its failings in its stage 1 and 2 responses or try and put things right via redress.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This sum recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of noise. This is in line with our remedies guidance. It aligns to a maladministration finding where the landlord has not acknowledged its failures or attempted to put things right via its complaint process.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its policy times. It acknowledged the stage 2 request within 2 working days and visited her to discuss the complaint around 15 days after the escalation. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed by around 7 working days, but it did not acknowledge this delay in its response.
In summary, we find no maladministration. There was a short delay issuing its stage 2 complaint response however this did not have an impact on the resident or the outcome of her complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for this failure and have included an element of learning for the landlord to consider in our learning section below.

Learning

The landlord reflected on its case handling and said it recognised the issue with its communication and record keeping. It said it has reviewed its ASB process and provided further staff training. The landlord should ensure new processes are embedded and staff are trained to follow its new policy.
The landlord should ensure any delays in its complaint responses are communicated and acknowledged to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As per our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts with residents. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

The landlord may want to consider how it communicates to residents during its complaints process. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of empathy and use of time to support positive communication with its residents.