London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202419069)

Decision
Case ID	202419069
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	5 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed flat on the first floor. The resident told us that she had been reporting noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour for almost 3 years. She had previously stage 1 complaint about the noise in September 2023 but did not complete the complaint procedure. The landlord said it could take no action because the resident had not consented to open an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case due to concern of being identified by her neighbour. Due to continued reports of noise, the landlord sought legal advice and installed carpets in the neighbouring property in January 2025.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Noise

5. The landlord repeatedly offered for the resident to open an ASB case and suggested mitigation to reduce her concerns about being identified. It used its discretion to progress action against the resident’s neighbour outside of its standard policy and also financed carpet to abate the noise, although this was the neighbour’s responsibility. It took further appropriate steps to escalate the matter for legal advice following repeated no access appointments by the neighbour and ultimately fitted the carpets in January 2025.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints within the timescales shown in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or its policy. It also did not record the correct date that the resident raised her complaint, provide a response to all aspects of her complaint or provide the correct Ombudsman details in its acknowledgement. It did not recognise these issues, demonstrate any learning or provide redress to 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 complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided. 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 05 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the time and trouble caused by the delays in acknowledging her complaint, failing to answer all complaint points raised and the incorrect information supplied. 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 05 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to clarify whether there are any noise issues related to the neighbour’s doors and if so, consider this in line with its policies.

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2023	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s earlier complaint (date unknown). It said that it had not taken any action against the neighbour as the resident had not given consent to open an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case or agreed to an action plan being put in place.
15 June 2024	The resident complained that her upstairs neighbour had removed their carpets around 2 years earlier. The resident said this caused noise transferring to her property and was seeking a resolution to this. She told the landlord that she had been reporting this since the carpets were removed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 June 2024.
8 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said that it had referred the matter to the council’s legal department as the upstairs neighbour had not permitted access for an inspection. It said that it had updated the resident in person the previous week and would continue with regular updates.
15 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she was unsure how long the intervention from the council’s legal team would take. In the meantime, she said that the noise continued. She said that she was seeking soundproofing in the neighbour’s property and for the landlord to oil the doors and gates to prevent them making noise when closed. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 30 July 2024.
13 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and apologised that the council’s legal team had not been in touch. It said that its staff had updated the resident as it had committed to do previously, and that it was “actively working” with the legal team but was not able to give a timeline at this time.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her case to us on 13 September 2024 as her neighbour’s flat was still not soundproofed and the noise continued to disturb her. She was seeking completion of the soundproofing works, oiling of the doors and gates and a resolution to the noise issues.

 

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 reports of noise from an upstairs neighbour
Finding	No maladministration

7. We cannot make a decision about whether a noise nuisance or ASB has occurred. But we can assess whether the landlord met its legal and policy duties, followed best practice, and acted fairly in response to the reports it received.
8. The resident told us she had been reporting noise for over 2 years, since the neighbour removed the carpets in his property, following his mother’s death. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will only consider matters raised in the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in June 2024, and which was subject to the landlord’s complaint process. The resident raised a previous complaint in September 2023 which she did not pursue following the landlord’s stage 1 response as such we will focus the investigation in the events following September 2023.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that following receipt of a concern, and consent from the resident, it will open an ASB case and create an action plan. In the resident’s earlier complaint in September 2023, the landlord said it could take no action because the resident would not consent to an ASB case being opened, as she was concerned this would lead to poor neighbour relations. This continued into the earlier part of the resident’s current complaint from June 2024. This position was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and demonstrated it had taken her concerns into account when considering further case management.
10. It is not disputed that this has been a longstanding issue and the landlord’s records indicate that it took several actions prior to the resident’s formal complaint, including:
    1. Offering on several occasions to open an ASB case, which was declined by the resident. The evidence also shows that the landlord offered mitigation for this, suggesting that it would have told the neighbour that the resident had “reluctantly” raised the complaint. This demonstrated the landlord had a resolution focused approach.
    2. Using its discretion in September 2023 to progress action against the neighbour and the noise being generated without identifying the resident. It did this by requesting a home visit to the neighbour as part of its tenancy survey programme, alongside all other properties in the block. It was positive to note the landlord’s proactive use of its discretion and its effective use of the tenancy survey meeting to make progress on the carpet issues.
    3. Following up with the neighbour on several occasions when there was a no access appointment to complete the tenancy survey visit. In January 2024, it contacted the council’s legal team to progress an injunction for access to the neighbour’s flat, due to repeated no access appointments, although this was later discontinued by the landlord when the neighbour provided access. This was an appropriate escalation given the continued noise being experienced by the resident.
    4. Completing a home visit with the neighbour on 25 January 2024. The neighbour told the landlord they would be refitting carpet once damp and mould repairs were completed the following week. The landlord asked the neighbour to be mindful of noise in the intervening period. This request was a further appropriate action.
    5. In February 2024, it requested a joint visit with the landlord’s damp and mould team, however a damp and mould surveyor was not available until May 2024. Attempts were made to visit the neighbour twice in May 2024, but no access was provided. The landlord again progressed the case to the council’s legal team for a second injunction, which was appropriate.
11. Within its complaint process, at both stages, the landlord told the resident that it was continuing to work with the council’s legal team to progress the issue, as the neighbour had not permitted access to their property. It committed to updating the resident as this progressed and there is evidence that it did this throughout the complaint process, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. On 23 August 2024, shortly after the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it had successfully visited the neighbour’s property and identified repairs that were required. It said that carpet would be fitted once the repairs had been completed. Later in September 2024, the landlord told the resident that it had agreed to pay for the carpet, which would normally have been the neighbour’s responsibility, however they did not have the funds to do this. This was further positive use of the landlord’s discretion to fund the carpets, as this may otherwise have caused further additional and substantial delays to the carpets being bought and fitted.
13. After the complaint procedure had concluded, there were further delays to the carpet being fitted due to contractor availability and further no access appointments from the neighbour. Despite this, the landlord demonstrated that it proactively sought resolution and was chasing the repairs. The carpets were fitted on 30 January 2025 and the landlord told us that it had not received any further noise complaints from the resident since.
14. Overall, the landlord was limited in the action it could take under its policy without opening an ASB case. Given the protracted nature of the noise issues, the landlord used its discretion effectively to progress the matter without opening a case, and in paying for the carpets. When the progress was slowed by repeated no access appointments from the neighbour, the evidence shows that the landlord used its escalation and legal process effectively to manage this.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

15. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy with timescales in line with the Code. It says the resident’s complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days at both stages and then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
16. The records show that the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 24 June 2024, which was 6 working days after receipt. It issued its response 10 working days later.
    2. Acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 30 July 2024, which was 11 working days after receipt. It issued its response 10 working days later.
17. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement indicates that it received the resident’s initial complaint on 24 June 2024, however the landlord’s case records show it was received on 15 June 2024. This slightly delayed the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint and was a record keeping error. The resident’s stage 2 complaint was also acknowledged late by the landlord.
18. Additionally, the landlord’s acknowledgement email at stage 1 gave the details of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) rather that our service. This was incorrect given the resident was raising a housing complaint and must be rectified in future correspondence with residents.
19. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s request for the neighbour’s doors to be oiled, to prevent the noise she was reporting. While this issue appears to have been resolved by the installation of carpets, the Code requires landlords to respond to all complaint points raised clearly and this was not done in this case.
20. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord identified it had acknowledged the resident’s complaints late, undertook any learning from these delays, or provided the resident with any form of redress, such as compensation. The landlord missed this opportunity to provide redress at any early opportunity and repair the landlord and tenant relationship.
21. While these failings did not have a considerable impact on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues, the accumulation of these procedural failings constitutes a service failure.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s ASB records were complete and accurate which assisted both the internal investigation and ours. The resident’s initial complaint was logged and acknowledged late at both stages of its complaint process and there was also evidence of the wrong Ombudsman details being provided in the acknowledgement, which must be rectified.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was largely positive. There is evidence of it providing updates and utilising her housing manager as a point of contact. There are some examples of her needing to chase for updates after the complaint procedure about the delayed carpet fitting.