Hyde Housing Association Limited (202328893)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328893

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of loud music coming from a neighbouring property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident started reporting issues with noise nuisance from her neighbour from around the year 2020.
  3. On 1 February 2023, the resident agreed to the installation of a noise recording machine in her property to monitor the reported loud music from her neighbour. The landlord confirmed it had added her name to a waiting list for the noise recording machine.
  4. In February 2023, the landlord sent letters to the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reports of loud music coming from their property.
  5. On 15 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported loud music coming from her neighbour’s property. She stated she had reported the loud music on several occasions.
  6. On 22 February 2024, the resident sent a complaint letter to the landlord by post. The landlord received the complaint letter on 27 February 2024. The resident stated the landlord had failed to stop the loud music coming from her neighbour’s property. The resident also said she had not received the noise recording equipment from the landlord and explained the situation had caused her and her daughter stress and anxiety.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2024. It explained it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour about the music and confirmed it would be visiting the block on 25 March 2024. The landlord also stated that the resident’s previous anti-social behaviour (ASB) case relating to the loud music was closed due to the resident being away from the property. In addition, it explained it no longer used noise recording machines. However instead, it provided access to a noise recording phone application.
  8. On 25 March 2024, the resident sent a letter by post to the landlord requesting her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord received the escalation letter on 25 March 2024. The resident stated she believed her calls and emails to the landlord were sufficient evidence to cover the dates and times of the loud music incidents. Therefore, she explained she did not complete any diary sheets but kept a full record at home. She also explained she stayed away from the property for a few days to have a break from the loud music.
  9. On 9 May 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and asked her to download a noise recording app to record the reported incidents of the loud music.
  10. In June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and asked her if she would be willing to take part in mediation with her neighbour. The landlord recorded that the resident declined mediation and the noise app.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 July 2024. It explained when it visited the block and spoke to the resident’s other neighbours, they did not report any issues with noise. In addition, it stated the resident’s ASB case was still open, and it would be in contact with the resident to discuss the next steps. The landlord said its ASB team had kept in contact with the resident and followed the correct processes to assist with the noise issues.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated she wanted the landlord to stop the loud music coming from her neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint, that she experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour for several years. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this is a longstanding issue for the resident. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint to the landlord until February 2024. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will consider specific events from around February 2023 onwards. This is in line with paragraph 42.(c). of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), which explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the reported noise from her neighbour’s property caused her and her daughter stress and anxiety. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate this as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. We can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her daughter’s health.

The resident’s reports of loud music coming from a neighbouring property.

  1. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed anti-social behaviour, but rather, this service will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states the landlord’s approach includes engaging with complainants and alleged perpetrators, providing support and or taking enforcement action.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure states once a resident reports ASB, a case is created and assigned to the landlord’s ASB team. In addition, it explains its ASB team will take reasonable steps to gather evidence quickly through tools such as noise monitors, incident diary sheets and hearsay evidence. The ASB procedure also states while a case is being investigated the landlord will ensure the resident is regularly updated.
  4. In February 2023, the landlord asked the resident if it could install noise recording equipment at her property to monitor the reported loud music coming from her neighbour’s property. The resident agreed to the installation of the noise recording equipment and the landlord added the resident’s name to a waiting list for the installation of the equipment. The landlord acted reasonably by offering to install the noise recording equipment as it was an effective method to investigate the level of noise. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord did not end up installing the noise recording equipment at the resident’s property as it no longer had access to the equipment. We have not been provided with details on why the landlord no longer had access to the noise recording equipment, but the landlord was entitled to stop using it, as landlords are not required to offer this as a service. However, it should have explained to the resident when it became aware that it would not be fitting the equipment in her property as previously agreed. This was a failure to manage her expectations. However, the landlord subsequently took reasonable steps to investigate the ASB reports.
  5. Although the landlord did not install noise recording equipment at the resident’s property, it sent letters to the resident’s neighbour to discuss the alleged noise. In addition, it requested updates from the resident about the reported noise in March 2023 and May 2023. These actions completed by the landlord were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure.
  6. In May 2023, the resident told the landlord she was not currently staying at the property as she needed a break from the reported loud music. The landlord contacted the resident in June 2023 to check if she had returned to her property. However, she confirmed in an email that she was still away from the property and was unsure when she would be returning. As the resident was still away from her property, the landlord decided to close the ASB case in June 2023 and notified the resident of this. This was a reasonable step by the landlord as the resident could not monitor and inform the landlord about any noise incidents if she was not staying at the property. The landlord can only reasonably take action against tenants for noise nuisance if it has evidence that the noise is ongoing. Without this evidence, the landlord could not take action.
  7. After the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case there were no further reports of noise until November 2023. There was a slight delay in the landlord responding to the noise report as the information provided by the landlord shows it did not contact the resident until January 2024 to discuss the reported noise nuisance. While this was a delay, it was minimal and did not affect the landlord’s overall handling of the reported noise nuisance. When the landlord called the resident in January 2024, it could not get through to her and left her a voicemail. The landlord’s notes also state it carried out a risk assessment which was reasonable. However, we have not seen a copy of the risk assessment.
  8. The landlord also spoke to the resident in February 2024 and March 2024 about the reported loud music. In addition, in March 2024 the landlord’s ASB officer attended the resident’s block and spoke to other neighbouring residents to check if they could hear the reported loud music. This was an effective method to gather evidence about the reported noise nuisance. The landlord’s notes state that all the residents it spoke to said there were no noise nuisance or ASB concerns within the building. Due to this, the landlord considered alternative options to gather evidence regarding the reported noise nuisance, which was appropriate.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident in May 2024 and asked her to download a noise app on her mobile phone to record the reported loud music. However, the resident stated she did not want to download the noise application. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to download the noise app to record the noise nuisance, so that it could investigate the issues she had reported. The noise app is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise. As the resident did not agree to download the noise app, it was proportionate for the landlord not to carry out any enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour in relation to the loud music, due to a lack of evidence. We acknowledge that the resident was calling and writing to the landlord to report noise, but this is not the same as recorded evidence of the noise itself.
  10. The landlord also offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour in June 2024. However, the resident declined this. Mediation is optional; therefore, it was entirely the resident’s decision whether she accepted the mediation offer. This service recognises that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation to the resident as mediation can be an effective tool to resolve disputes between neighbours in some cases.
  11. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s noise nuisance reports. It also stated the resident’s ASB case was still open, and it would be in contact to discuss the next steps. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it was positive that the landlord kept the case open after the resident declined mediation and downloading the noise app.
  12. After the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it contacted the resident in July 2024 and August 2024 to discuss the reported noise nuisance. Following its contact with the resident in August 2024, the resident agreed to download the noise app to her phone and record the reported loud music. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting the resident to discuss the reported noise nuisance and it was positive that the resident agreed to download the noise app to her mobile phone to help gather evidence of the alleged loud music.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable to the resident’s reports of loud music and in line with its ASB policy and procedure. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loud music coming from a neighbouring property. The evidence does not show any significant failings by the landlord that would amount to maladministration.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales as referenced in the Code.
  2. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. On 22 February 2024, the resident sent her complaint to the landlord by post. The landlord received the complaint letter on 27 February 2024. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 1 complaint response to the resident until 20 March 2024, which was 16 working days after it received the resident‘s complaint. The response was late and not compliant with the Code or the landlord’s own complaints policy.
  3. It took the landlord around 65 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 25 March 2024, the resident posted a letter to the landlord requesting her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord received the letter on 28 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 July 2024. The response was not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. This delay would have inconvenienced the resident as she was waiting longer than she should have been for a response.
  4. The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling delays. Therefore, given the delay in the landlord providing both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded, is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loud music coming from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling errors.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date.