London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202305309)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with his mother. The neighbour lives directly above the resident. In November 2022 the resident reported noise transference from his neighbour which he thought was due to inadequate flooring. He was unhappy with how the landlord handled his reports of noise transference.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise transference.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Noise transference

4. The landlord did not handle the resident’s reports of noise transference in line with its ASB policy. It did not communicate clearly about installing noise monitoring equipment, and delays in replacing the neighbour’s flooring prolonged the issue. It also did not consider all the investigative options available under its policy. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant it could not always show its actions or decision making. These failures led to delays in identifying and resolving the cause of the noise.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint in line with its policies or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code). There was a delay in its notifications of extensions, and it did not acknowledge or offer suitable redress in line with its policy and the Code in every instance.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we didn’t investigate

6. The resident told us the noise has negatively impacted his and his mother’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an 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 and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
7. During recent contact with us the resident said he had experienced delays with repairs following leaks and was unhappy with staff conduct. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will look at the matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 12 December 2023 and 30 July 2025. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

What we did investigate

First complaint

8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will treat reports about noise from wooden flooring as ‘Grade 3 ASB’ and investigate them. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord logged the resident’s initial noise report in November 2022, in line with this policy.
9. The ASB policy says for ‘Grade 3 ASB’ cases, the landlord must begin initial investigations within 5 working days of receiving the noise report. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the neighbour the same day it received the resident’s report. It explained the noise concerns, and the neighbour had the opportunity to explain she was due to get carpet installed.
10. For ‘Grade 3 ASB’ cases, the landlord says investigations should include inspections, interviews, diary sheets, noise‑monitoring equipment, and evidence from other agencies. The resident provided diary sheets, which supports that the landlord took an appropriate step by gathering clear, structured evidence for the investigation.
11. The ASB policy requires a full ASB file with risk assessments, action plans, and records of all contact. The landlord completed a risk assessment, and the action plan indicated the landlord would carry out a home visit to establish what flooring the neighbour had installed. The landlord said in its complaint responses it visited the neighbour’s property 3 times, visually checked the flooring, and carried out sound tests. However, the landlord has not recorded this within the ASB case. Without clear records, we cannot determine if it fully met its policy requirements. This is a record-keeping failure.
12. The ASB policy says the landlord should consider mediation early, as this increases the chance of resolving issues. The ASB case notes confirmed the neighbour agreed to mediation. However, we have seen no record the landlord discussed this with the resident. The stage 1 response said the landlord could refer the resident to mediation, but this came almost 12 months after the resident first reported noise. The landlord raised the option too late which was unfair. Earlier mediation, in line with its policy, could have helped improve communication, and the situation with the neighbours.
13. The ASB policy says the landlord will close a case only when it has resolved the nuisance, there have been no incidents for 3 months, the resident withdraws, or no further action is possible. Although the stage 1 response said it closed the case, there is no evidence to confirm the landlord sent a formal ASB closure letter. This was another record‑keeping failure. This may have caused confusion for the resident as the landlord had not communicated the closure reasons formally, in line with policy.
14. The ASB policy supports partnership working. The EHPP team visited in May 2023 and assessed the noise the resident reported. It was positive that the landlord involved this team, as it provided independent, specialist evidence. The EHPP visit also found poor sound insulation between the flats. It said the landlord should arrange a structural survey of the flooring because of the noise they witnessed. This supported the resident’s escalation reasons that water damage from a previous leak in the above flats may have affected the sound proofing in his neighbours flooring.
15. The landlord asked internally for advice about possible structural issues, including water damage and soundproofing. It relied on a previous surveyor visit from April 2023, which had found no issues. However, there are no records of this visit, which limited our ability to fully assess its actions. Although the landlord can rely on advice from its internal specialist teams, the EHPP had recommended a survey. The landlord has not shown how it considered this recommendation or why it chose not to complete a further survey. Its lack of consideration meant it did not identify the cause of the noise sooner. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it carried out a sound test, but it didn’t provide any evidence of this. The resident disputes the landlord completed a sound test. He said the EHPP completed a noise test in May 2023. To put this right, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would provide noise‑monitoring equipment. This was a positive step, in line with its ASB policy, to gather further evidence and reassure the resident that the landlord was taking his concerns seriously.
17. When the resident received no update about the noise monitoring equipment, he continued to contact the landlord in March and April 2024 because the noise persisted. The EHPP team didn’t installed the equipment until 11 July 2024. While the landlord contacted the EHPP to understand when they would install the equipment, we have seen no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about the delay. This was unreasonable, especially because the landlord had committed to providing this as part of its complaint resolution. This would have further undermined the resident and landlord relationship.
18. After continued reports from the resident about noise, the landlord arranged a full inspection of the flat above on 7 May 2024. The inspection found that the neighbour had installed inadequate flooring. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange this inspection, it took place nearly 18 months after the resident first raised concerns. EHPP had already advised that poor sound insulation or flooring issues could be contributing to the noise, but the landlord did not act on this information. Because the landlord did not carry out a thorough inspection earlier, it did not identify the cause of the noise sooner and the resident experienced significant avoidable distress while living with the noise.
19. Following the inspection in May 2024, the landlord engaged with the neighbour. It confirmed by letter and a visit that they needed to replace the flooring with adequate soundproofing. This was a reasonable approach. When the neighbour confirmed they did not have the resources to change the flooring, the landlord agreed it would do this in July 2024.
20. However, it did not complete the work until November 2024. Although it was reasonable to give the neighbour time to respond, the nearly 6‑month delay was unreasonable because the resident continued to experience noise. We have seen mention of a visit to the resident in June 2024 but no evidence to show the landlord kept him updated about what actions it was taking about the flooring and timescales. The flooring replacement was intended to resolve the problem, so the lack of communication and delay prolonged the impact on the resident.
21. The landlord didn’t consistently follow its ASB policy and did not acknowledge these failures. It didn’t act on the EHPP advice, delayed the installation of noise monitoring equipment, and took nearly 18 months to complete a full inspection to identify the cause of the noise. These failures meant the landlord delayed identifying the cause of the noise. This resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience as the resident continued to experience noise for a prolonged period.

Second complaint

22. The resident reported after the landlord installed new flooring in the neighbour’s property in November 2024; the noise had become worse. The landlord said it installed noise‑monitoring equipment for two weeks in December 2024, but did not identify any statutory noise nuisance. The EHPP team also visited on 31 December 2024, and did not witness any noise nuisance. The landlord said it visited the neighbour, and asked her to be mindful of noise, particularly in the early hours.
23. We have seen no records of these visits, which was a record‑keeping failure; however, the resident does not dispute that the visits took place. These actions were a reasonable response, as they showed the landlord continued to investigate the resident’s concerns and take steps to address the noise after replacing the flooring.
24. When the resident raised concerns in January 2025 about how the landlord had continued to manage his noise reports, it was appropriate that the landlord logged this as a formal complaint.
25. The noise issues he reported still fell within its ‘Grade 3 ASB’ case type. The evidence shows the resident reported noise in January 2025, so the landlord could have opened an ASB case at that stage. The landlord’s complaint responses said the resident only confirmed he wanted the matter treated as ASB during a visit on 2 May 2025, but we have seen no record of this visit. The landlord then opened the ASB case on 26 June 2025. The landlord did not follow its policy requirement to open an ASB case within 5 working days. The lack of records about the visit and discussions was a record‑keeping failure and has limited our ability to fully assess the landlord’s actions.
26. Once the landlord logged the ASB case, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about his concerns. This was a reasonable approach which followed the landlord’s communication target times. This would have provided reassurance to the resident it was taking his concerns seriously, and it was committed to follow up the reports with the neighbour.
27. The second stage 1 response confirmed the landlord had offered mediation and that both parties had declined. It is not clear from the records when the landlord made this offer, but the resident has not disputed this. Offering mediation was a reasonable step by the landlord, in line with policy, to resolve the noise nuisance.
28. There are gaps in the landlord’s second ASB case records. We have seen mention of action plans and risk assessments, but there are no formal records of these. This is not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it will keep accurate records. The lack of records has impacted our ability to fully investigate this matter, as we do not know what was discussed or agreed as part of the action plans.
29. The ASB case notes also show it missed a risk assessment in August 2025. It is particularly concerning about the lack of risk assessment, given the resident told the landlord on multiple occasions that this matter was negatively affecting his and his mother’s, well-being and significantly impacting their daily lives. The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment meant there was no evidence it had given any consideration to the impact of this situation on the resident or how it could support him with this. This likely left the resident feeling the landlord did not care.
30. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not sent the neighbour a written warning, as it had previously said it would. The ASB policy allows the landlord to use its discretion when deciding on the most appropriate action, so while it was disappointing for the resident, it was open to the landlord to give a verbal warning instead. However, we have not seen any written record of this warning, so we can’t confirm whether it took place. This lack of record-keeping meant the resident could not be confident that the landlord had taken the action it said it would, which added to his uncertainty and frustration.
31. When the resident questioned whether the new flooring was suitable, the landlord asked advice from its internal specialist team. The team confirmed that the contractor had installed the correct underlay and floor coverings in line with the tenancy requirements. It was positive that the landlord checked this. However, the resident continued to experience noise that affected him and his mother.
32. The landlord’s policy says it will investigate reports thoroughly, and because the resident continued to report excessive noise, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider other options. This could have included seeking independent advice, particularly given its earlier mishandling of the issue, which resulted in it identifying inadequate flooring 18 months after the resident first raised concerns.
33. The resident also raised his concerns about the structural aspect of the noise. The landlord provided reassurance in its second stage 2 response that the inspection completed in May 2024 did not identify any structural issues with the building. This inspection also completed a hammer test. We have not seen evidence relating to this inspection. This has impacted our ability to fully investigate this matter as we cannot fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions because we do not know exactly what it did.
34. When the resident was concerned the landlord had said it had closed the case, it was appropriate that the landlord clarified this in its stage 2 response. It explained that while the EHPP had closed their case, the ASB case remained open. It reassured the resident that it would provide fortnightly updates in line with its policy, which the landlord evidenced in the ASB case notes. This gave the resident confidence that the landlord was actively monitoring the situation.
35. While it was positive that the landlord again offered noise monitoring equipment in its second stage 2 response, it is unclear whether further monitoring will help the resident or address the root cause of the issue. The landlord had considered other tools within its policy, including visits and specialist advice, to identify the source of the noise. However, it could have recognised the resident’s lack of trust, as earlier inspections did not detect the inadequate flooring. It could also have considered additional investigative steps, such as arranging an up‑to‑date survey of the flooring. This is particularly important as the resident has recently reported that the noise is still ongoing and continues to affect him and his mother.

Summary

36. The landlord took some appropriate steps, including logging the initial ASB report in line with policy, contacting the neighbour promptly, gathering evidence, working with other agencies, and offering mediation. It eventually carried out a full inspection and replaced the neighbour’s flooring. When the noise continued, it maintained contact with the resident during the second ASB case and took further steps to investigate.
37. However, it did not follow its ASB policy consistently. It delayed opening the second ASB case and did not record risk assessments or action plans. It did not act on the EHPP advice and delayed installing noise monitoring equipment. It took nearly 18 months to identify the inadequate flooring despite early warnings. It also did not consider additional investigative steps that might help rebuild the resident’s trust in the flooring it installed. There were significant gaps in record keeping, including missing evidence of visits, sound tests, and warnings. These failures delayed identifying the cause of the noise and led to a prolonged period in which the resident experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience.
38. Given the above post internal complaints procedure update, it is positive the landlord completed further visits about the noise. However, the resident continues to experience noise nuisance in the property. It continues to impact him and his mother. He has been living with the issue since 2022, and although the landlord has taken steps to address the issue, but it’s not gone far enough.
39. Therefore, we have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500. This reflects the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to identify and resolve the issue earlier and is in line with our remedies guidance where failure adversely affected the resident.
40. As the landlord’s earlier inaction regarding the flooring affected its relationship with the resident, we have ordered it to arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the flooring in the flat above. This may help rebuild trust. It will also provide the resident with up-to-date reassurance that the landlord has completed all appropriate investigations.

41. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are:
42. The landlord has a complaints policy that meets the Code’s requirements on timescales and the definition of a complaint. Under the policy, stage 1 acknowledgements should be issued within 5 working days, and stage 1 responses within 10 working days. A stage 1 extension must be issued within the original 10-day timescale. Stage 2 acknowledgements should be issued within 5 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. A stage 2 extension must be issued within the original 20‑day timescale.
43. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction in March 2023, but the landlord failed to acknowledge or log this as a complaint. As a result, it left the resident without a formal response and caused inconvenience, as he had to approach us for assistance.
44. After our contact on 27 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day, and responded within 10 workings days. These were within the policy timescales. However, it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request after 9 working days, outside the 5-working day limit. When extending its stage 2 response, the landlord notified the resident within the required 20-working day period. The final response was issued within the extension timescale.
45. The residents made a second stage 1 complaint on 15 January 2025, which the landlord acknowledged within 1 working day. When extending its stage 1 response it did not notify him within the required 10 working day period. It instead issued the extension on the 12th working day, after the deadline had passed. This did not meet the Code and caused avoidable inconvenience.
46. The response following the extension was issued within the required time, and the landlord appropriately acknowledge the delay and offered suitable £25 redress. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation after 6 working days. This was 1 day outside the policy, but this had minimal impact. The landlord made a stage 2 extension request within the required 20-working day period. However, the overall delay still resulted in avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
47. In summary, the landlord failed to log the resident’s initial dissatisfaction as a complaint. It delayed acknowledging his first escalation request by 4 days. After the residents second complaint it did not notify him of required extensions at either stage in the required timescales, and instead provided these after the deadlines had passed. The delays and late notifications caused avoidable inconvenience. The landlord apologised when requesting extensions, but it did not acknowledge these delays in its responses or offer further redress, except for the stage 1 delay on the second complaint. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and made an order of an additional £200 compensation in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

48. The landlord should apply its complaints policy and the Code consistently. Staff should be able to recognise and log dissatisfaction as a complaint, and the landlord should issue acknowledgements, responses, and any extensions within the required timescales. Where delays occur, it should acknowledge them and offer appropriate redress in line with its policy and the Code.
49. The landlord should make sure it manages all ASB cases in line with its policy. This includes opening cases on time, using the right investigation tools, and keeping accurate records.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

50. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Communication

51. The landlord should ensure it provides regular updates in line with its ASB policy. It should also keep residents updated about what it is doing and when. Clear communication helps build trust and makes it more likely that problems will be identified early.