London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202347227)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202347227

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

20 November 2025

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a block of flats. She moved to the property in early January 2023. Soon afterwards, she began to report intrusive noise from a neighbour’s home. The neighbour lives above the property. The landlord is a local council. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of intrusive noise.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of intrusive noise.
    2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. We found that the landlord:
    1. Overlooked some case handling issues which adversely impacted the resident.
    2. Overlooked complaint handling issues which adversely impacted the resident.

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 relevant senior 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

19 December 2025

 

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows:

  • £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its response to her reports of intrusive noise.
  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

19 December 2025

 

Learning order

The landlord must share a copy of this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must provide us with a copy of its related internal correspondence.

No later than

19 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

27 April 2023

The resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unable to enjoy the property due to noise from the neighbour. She felt the neighbour had laminate flooring and this was contrary to their tenancy conditions. She highlighted her vulnerabilities. Her other points were:

  • The neighbour made noise “well into the night”.
  • The landlord had told her that the neighbour had adequate flooring.
  • The neighbour should replace their flooring with carpets.

5 May 2023

The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It confirmed that the neighbour had extensive laminate flooring. It said they would buy rugs to reduce noise transfer. It also said the issue related to general household noise. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord’s other key points were:

  • It had reviewed the recordings the resident supplied.
  • The noise captured in these recordings was not prolonged.
  • The noise often occurred within “sociable hours”.
  • It had referred the resident to various support services.
  • It had discussed alternative housing options with her.
  • The neighbour had raised a counter allegation about her.

16 May 2023

The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the noise was unbearable and it was affecting her wellbeing. She reiterated that the neighbour should replace their flooring. Alternatively, she said the landlord could install sound proofing to address the issue.

14 June 2023

The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it had told the neighbour to replace their flooring by mid-September 2023. This was on the basis that laminate flooring was not allowed above the block’s ground floor level. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Referral to the Ombudsman

In 2024 the resident told us the neighbour had replaced their flooring. However, she said their new flooring had not reduced the noise. She said the landlord should force the neighbour to install carpets or provide soundproofing. She broadly reiterated these comments in 2025.

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

Response to the resident’s reports of intrusive noise

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord says the resident reported excessive noise from the neighbour’s home on 5 January 2023. It also says one of its senior managers visited the neighbour on the next day to assess their flooring. It says that, at this point, the neighbour agreed to obtain some rugs to reduce noise transfer. The resident has not disputed this version of events.
  2. The landlord’s records show it logged an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for the resident on 9 January 2023. This was 4 working days after her report. The landlord’s ASB policy says it must respond to reports of noise nuisance within 5 working days. In this case, it prioritised and logged the resident’s case in line with its policy. This was appropriate.
  3. However, the landlord’s ASB case records do not reflect its visit to the neighbour. Its ASB policy includes record keeping provisions. It says the landlord must “maintain a working file” for each ASB report. It also says if the landlord cannot add relevant case notes to its file straightaway, then it should add these later. In this case, the landlord did not do this.
  4. From the landlord’s ASB records, there is a lack of notes to show it took any action on the resident’s case between 1 February 2023 and 2 May 2023. In contrast, the landlord’s policy says it must contact the reporting resident every month about their case. The landlord has not shown that it adhered to its policy’s communication requirements.
  5. On 3 May 2023 the landlord visited the resident at the property. This was about 1 week after she had complained. Corresponding notes show the landlord referred her to a mediation service at this point. This was around 4 months after it had logged an ASB case for her. There is no indication it had offered her mediation before this point.
  6. The landlord’s ASB policy says it must consider mediation “in all appropriate cases”. It also says mediation is more likely to be successful if it is offered early in a dispute. In this case, the landlord’s approach was not consistent with its policy. There is evidence that the neighbour dispute had escalated by the time it offered mediation. Ultimately, the landlord may have missed an opportunity to improve the resident’s situation.
  7. During the above referenced home visit, the landlord told the resident that the neighbour had adequate flooring. It broadly reiterated this position in its stage 1 response. At stage 2, it said it had told the neighbour to replace their flooring. This was on the basis that they had a type of flooring that was not allowed. This was conflicting information.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord changed its approach to the neighbour’s flooring. It did this about 5 months after the resident’s initial report of intrusive noise. This change indicates the landlord may have made an error when it initially inspected the neighbour’s flooring. The evidence suggests this caused a delay for the resident. In any case, it is likely the landlord’s inconsistent approach undermined her confidence in its ASB case handling.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had given the neighbour until 12 September 2023 to replace their flooring. Later, the resident told us the neighbour had replaced their flooring about 10 months after she had reported the noise to the landlord. Ultimately, this shows the landlord followed up the commitment in its stage 2 response.
  10. During its internal complaints process, the landlord took several actions to help the resident. For example, it referred her to the council’s (separate) noise team and a mental health support service. It also referred the resident to a source of funding. It believed the fund could help her buy some furniture. It also believed that the noise was intensified by the resident’s lack of furniture. The above steps were consistent with its ASB policy.
  11. In April 2025 the resident made a further complaint about the landlord’s ASB case handling. This was around 22 months after it had issued its final response to her initial complaint. At this point, the resident asked the landlord to move her for safety reasons. We have seen limited information about her further complaint. We need sufficient evidence to complete a fair investigation, so we have not considered it in this report.
  12. Overall, aspects of the landlord’s case handling were not consistent with its ASB policy. Significantly, the landlord did not acknowledge that it had changed its approach to the neighbour’s flooring or the related delay. Similarly, it did not acknowledge that it had given the resident conflicting information about the neighbour’s flooring. Since it has not attempted to put things right for her, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.
  13. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. Our complaint handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord supplied a complaints policy that was effective from February 2024 onwards. This document postdates its stage 2 response by around 8 months.
  2. We were unable to find a more relevant policy on the landlord’s website or in our own records. We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against the relevant Code.
  3. It took the landlord 5 working days to issue a stage 1 response. This is based on the period between 27 April 2023 and 5 May 2023. In line with the Code, landlords have up to 15 working days to respond at stage 1. In this case, the landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with the Code’s timescale. This was appropriate complaint handling.
  4. It took the landlord about 29 days to issue a stage 2 response. This is based on the period between 16 May 2023 and 14 June 2023. The Code says landlords must respond within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request at stage 2. The landlord did not comply with the Code. There is no indication it updated the resident about the delay.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable. It should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every complaint investigation. This will allow the landlord to identify any procedural delays or failures and address these accordingly.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she was still unhappy. For clarity, complaints about noise and/or ASB are within our remit. The Code says a compliant response must include referral details for the Housing Ombudsman. Ultimately, the landlord should have referred the resident to the right ombudsman service.
  7. From the evidence provided, it is unclear if the resident initially contacted the LGSCO. If she did, it is likely this was inconvenient for her. Our records suggest that she first contacted us in March 2024. This was about 9 months after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. This timeframe points to a delay. Ultimately, there is some evidence that the resident may have been adversely impacted by the landlord’s incorrect information.
  8. Overall, the landlord did not adhere to the Code at times. It did not acknowledge this or the related adverse impact to the resident. Since it has not attempted to put things right, we find there was maladministration on its part. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

  1. The landlord gave the resident conflicting information. It should be mindful that conflicting information could be evidence of a service failure that it needs to address.
  2. The landlord did not offer mediation swiftly in line with its ASB policy. It should be mindful that the involved parties often become less receptive to it if a dispute escalates.
  3. The landlord did not refer the resident to the correct ombudsman service. It could consider including information about the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO in its complaint letters.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

  1. There were problems with the landlord’s ASB case records. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.

Communication

  1. The landlord should adhere to any communication provisions in its policies. Our investigation did not highlight any other communication issues.