From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202413056)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413056

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a Housing Association. She lives on her own in a flat and has an upstairs neighbour. The resident told the landlord that she has a number of health conditions and that uninterrupted sleep is important for her health and wellbeing.
  2. Between 2020 and August 2023 the resident reported incidents of noise to the landlord from the upstairs flat. The noise was typically described as ‘children running, playing, banging, or stomping’. The evidence shows that the landlord took several actions during this period including but not limited to:
    1. advising the resident that the noise reported, such as children playing, was ‘everyday noise’ which was ‘not enforceable’
    2. installed noise monitoring equipment (NME) in the property for a set period, concluding that the noise recorded ‘was not antisocial behaviour (ASB)’
    3. writing to the neighbour to advise of the impact the noise was having on the resident
    4. making a ‘wellbeing referral’ for the resident due to the impact the noise was having
    5. referring the resident and her neighbour to mediation
  3. A ‘good neighbour agreement’ was signed in May 2023 in which:
    1. the resident’s neighbour agreed to try and limit the noise made by her children
    2. the resident agreed to report further incidents of noise to the mediator, rather than confront the neighbour directly
  4. On 12 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
    1. the child upstairs was making ‘running and banging sounds’
    2. her neighbour had lied to the landlord about who was living at the property
    3. the good neighbour agreement had not been effective
    4. counter allegations had been made by her upstairs neighbour
  5. On 13 June 2024 the resident and landlord spoke on the phone. The resident agreed to send the landlord details of any further incidents. A ‘case review’ date was set for 21 August 2024, by which the resident should send all records of noise to the landlord for it to review. The landlord sent the resident an email the same day inviting her to complete diary sheets.
  6. The resident and landlord spoke on the phone on 19 and 21 June 2024. The resident said she would use the ‘Noise App’ to make recordings of the noise. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 5 July 2024.
  7. The resident sent her noise diaries to the landlord on 26 June 2024. She approached this Service on 28 June 2024. On 3 July 2024 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the member of staff assigned to her case and asked to cancel the appointment on 5 July 2024.
  8. On 20 and 22 August 2024 the landlord tried to call the resident to ask if the noise was ongoing. It emailed her on 22 August 2024 to say that it had ‘not received any further reports’ and hoped that the ‘situation was resolved’. The resident made further reports of banging on 28 August 2024 and asked for access to the Noise App. The landlord called the resident the next day and sent her an ‘invitation’ to use the app.
  9. On 18 September 2024 the resident and landlord spoke on the phone. The resident confirmed that the details of situation remained the same and that the last reports she had made were the noise diaries sent in June 2024.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. It said that it would change the resident’s assigned ‘ASB Officer’ and that she would be informed of who this would be by 20 September 2024. It also offered £50 compensation for errors it had identified in its handling of her reports of noise from a historic case.
  11. On 24 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She remained unhappy that no action had been taken and felt the situation remained unresolved. On 30 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged her escalation request. On 31 October 2024 a new ‘ASB Officer’ visited the resident to provide her with access to the noise app. On 13 November 2024 the landlord emailed the resident committing to monitoring the noise recorded for a period of 4 weeks.
  12. On 14 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
    1. said that it did not communicate well enough with the resident about how it would respond to the noise reports she had been making
    2. said that it did not update the resident about its promise to assign a new ASB Officer, which should have been done by 20 September 2024
    3. offered a further £100 compensation for the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB case. This was in addition to the £50 already offered
    4. offered a further £50 compensation for delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
  13. On 19 November 2024 the resident asked us to investigate. She said that she was not happy with the landlord’s final response and that she had been ‘ignored and mistreated’ by the landlord for 5 years, and the noise continued. The evidence shows that the £200 offered by the landlord was credited to the resident’s rent account by mutual agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s response to her reports of noise over a period of 5 years. The evidence shows that while the issues reported have been ongoing for a long time, the landlord has not responded to these formally as part of its complaint responses, in line with its policies. The resident also raised concerns with us about the landlord’s handling of further reports of noise made after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
  3. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. Therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated as part of its complaint response. It is considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response, and not to consider historic events where the landlord has made the reasonable decision not to consider these events in its complaint handling.
  4. The evidence shows a gap in the resident’s reports of noise for a period of over 8 months, between October 2023 and June 2024. We have further considered that it is unreasonable therefore to investigate events which took place before the resident’s renewed noise reports in June 2024. Events which took place before this time have been referenced for context where necessary. These events have also been borne in mind with respect to our consideration of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise from an upstairs neighbour

  1. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy (ASB policy) sets out how the landlord will respond to reports of ‘behaviour that impacts an individual’. It states that not all such behaviour can be deemed to be ASB. For example, that ‘noise from children when they are playing, sounds of normal day to day living such as opening and closing of doors, going up and down stairs’ would not be considered ASB. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Procedure (ASB Procedure) sets out what actions it will take, where reports are ‘accepted as ASB’.
  2. The ASB Procedure sets out how the landlord will investigate and gather evidence in response to reports of ASB. The procedure sets out that this will usually involve interviewing both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator. It may also use diary sheets and noise monitoring. The procedure states that it aims to respond to reports promptly and keep residents regularly updated.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord used these investigation methods in response to the resident’s reports of noise. This included interviewing all parties, for example when it called both the resident and her neighbour on 13 June 2024 and 20 August 2024 (though the resident was not available on 20 August 2024). It also asked the resident to submit recordings via a ‘Noise App’, provided the resident with noise diary sheets, and made reasonable attempts to visit the resident to witness the noise.
  4. It first attempted to visit the resident on 5 July 2024 to witness the noise, however the resident cancelled this visit. She also requested a new ASB Officer. The landlord showed good practice by agreeing to this request, however there was a delay in arranging this. On 18 September 2024 the landlord promised that the resident would be informed who their new ‘ASB Officer’ by 20 September 2024. However this did not happen until 31 October 2024.
  5. This failing caused unnecessary frustration for the resident because, as the landlord later acknowledged, it did not communicate with her effectively during this time. The landlord later identified this as a failing caused by staff absence. Although the cancellation of the visit was outside the landlord’s control, the delay in assigning a new ASB Officer resulted in it not visiting the resident again until 31 October 2024, which was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord’s investigations reviewed the resident’s reports and it interviewed her over the phone on a further occasion on 21 June 2024, to establish that the noise was not regularly happening at what it described as ‘antisocial hours’. In the absence of clearly defined antisocial hours in the landlord’s own ASB Policy or ASB Procedure, we have referred to those set out in The Environmental Protection Act 1990 for reference, which sets out that it would be reasonable to consider ‘antisocial hours’ relating to noise complaints between 11PM and 7AM. The noise diaries submitted by the resident reflect that very few instances were reported between those hours, supporting the landlord’s own conclusion.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord first asked the resident to take noise recordings using the ‘Noise App’ on 19 June 2024. This was reasonable because the Noise App is set out in the landlord’s ASB Procedure as an evidence gathering tool which may have helped to inform its next steps. It was appropriate that it invited the resident to use this tool and helped her to set it up when it visited her on 31 October 2024.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord did not always communicate clearly with the resident. It did not explain what evidence it needed to acquire in its investigations, or what outcome acquiring this evidence could provide. This may have been helpful to ensure it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
  9. For example, on 13 June 2024 it told the resident she could submit noise diary sheets, which it asked her to submit by 21 August 2024. The resident submitted diary sheets on 25 June 2024. The evidence also shows that the resident had made reports on 19 June 2024 over the telephone and more general reports of ongoing noise on 3 July 2024 by email. However on 22 August 2024 it told the resident that ‘she had not submitted any further updates’ and that the case would be closed.
  10. Although the landlord did unsuccessfully attempt to contact the resident on 20 August 2024, its account that it had not received any reports by 22 August 2024 was inaccurate and a failing. This resulted in the resident going to avoidable time and trouble making continued making reports over the phone which were not appropriately considered at the ‘Case Review’ it had promised would take place on 21 August 2024. The evidence shows this review did not go ahead as a result, which was a failing.
  11. This failing and the impact that it had on the resident was somewhat mitigated because the landlord did still use its discretion to take some actions, in line with its procedure. For example, on 13 June 2024 and 20 August 2024 when it spoke to the upstairs neighbour, it also asked her to try and limit the noise which was occurring. It later visited the neighbour on 19 September 2024 to speak to them in person. These actions were appropriate based on the evidence available, although the resident did not feel this led to any improvement.
  12. In addition to establishing the level of noise, there were other factors that were reasonable for the landlord to investigate. For example, the resident had also raised concerns that the noise problems may have been caused, or significantly contributed to, because the neighbour had several people living in the property, in breach of their tenancy agreement. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out an appropriately in depth investigation of this on more than one occasion. It reasonably satisfied itself that this was not the case.
  13. Lastly, the resident raised concerns throughout the period assessed that the neighbour had broken the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ (the agreement) which was signed between the resident and her upstairs neighbour in May 2023. There is no indication in the landlord’s policies or procedures however what steps may be taken in the event the agreement was breached. As the agreement was informal and non-binding, it is reasonable that the landlord did not take any steps regarding this report. However, there is no evidence that it explained this to the resident, or managed the resident’s expectations as to what action (if any) it could take a result, as would have been reasonable under the aims of its ASB procedure.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord engaged its ASB Procedure to carry out appropriate investigations, however there were unreasonable delays in completing these investigations. The landlord’s communication with the resident was at times unclear or inaccurate. The resident’s expectations were not appropriately managed. This caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  15. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it offered a total of £100 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise during the period assessed in this investigation. This included the resident’s time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused by a delay in providing regular updates (and appointing a new ASB officer). It is evident therefore that in the landlord’s complaint handling it accurately identified that there had been a service failure.
  16. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there has been a service failure which ‘may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, but might include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays’ compensation of up to £100 should be considered. The landlord therefore made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour.
  17. We published our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints (the Report) in October 2022, which summarises that often where there are reports of noise which are not (or unlikely to be ASB), many landlords still view these reports ‘through the lens of ASB’. The Report notes that it is ‘unfair to both the resident making the complaint and the resident being complained about for the noise to be treated as something it is not’ and that it is ‘harder for the landlord to make consistent and reasonable decisions if it does not have the right framework for all types of noise reports.’
  18. The Report makes several observations and recommendations which would be useful for the landlord to consider, particularly with regard to the benefit of having a separate framework for handling noise complaints. The Report similarly contains useful insights with regard to landlords’ communication with residents who make noise complaints.
  19. As such, we have recommended that the landlord consider conducting a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this report. This might include amending its ASB Policy or ASB Procedure, or introducing a new policy, procedure, or other framework, to guide its future handling of noise complaints or reports of noise transference. It may choose to make reference to our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints (2022) alongside the failings highlighted in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may choose to consider conducting a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this report.
  2. The landlord may choose to consider a implementing a good neighbourhood management policy to use where noise does not constitute ASB, as described in our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints (2022)