Milton Keynes City Council (202453502)

Decision
Case ID	202453502
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Milton Keynes City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 April 2026

Background

The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour in 2021 and complained to the landlord about ongoing ASB in January 2025. She also reported to it that she thought a leak in an upstairs property or potential floor replacement had affected the sound insulation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB and concerns over a leak or potential floor replacement affecting the sound insulation.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and concerns over a leak or potential floor replacement affecting the sound insulation.
2. Service failure over the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to ASB and sound insulation

The landlord’s delay in completing a risk assessment and making enquiries with the police was not in line with its ASB policy. It did not explain to the resident what action it could take to address any noise reports which were not a “statutory nuisance”. It also did not show it investigated the resident’s concerns about a possible link between the noise and water leak damage or flooring replacement.

Complaint response

The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response within the timescale in its complaint policy and did not acknowledge this.

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 senior person the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance The landlord must provide us with a copy of the apology by the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her ASB reports and concerns over sound insulation £50 for the distress and inconvenience 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 12 May 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the landlord has not considered if the noise is caused by something it is responsible for repairing or replacement flooring. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection to consider both factors noted above. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure: it completes its inspection by the due date using a suitably qualified person, explaining their expertise if the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property and the neighbour’s property no later than the due date it must provide the resident and us with a copy of its report by the due date with details of the surveyor’s expertise.	No later than 12 May 2026
4	Clarification order The landlord must write to the resident to explain how it will deal with any reports of non-statutory noise, including any mitigations or support it can offer. It must also explain to her how it deals with reports of neighbour’s making changes to their properties without permission. It must provide us with a copy of its letter by the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026
5	ASB case review The landlord must review the last 3 months of ASB reports from the resident relating to cannabis and drug use. It must complete a risk assessment and provide her with a clear plan to address the ASB with the frequency of updates which it must share with her If it decides it cannot take any further action, it must provide her with reasons and explain how it will deal with the reports. It must provide evidence to us of this no later than the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 January 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to ASB reported since 2021. She also raised the possibility of a “massive water leak” and resulting structural damage which made the noise transfer worse.
31 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: several issues, concerning a dog and paint, were acted upon and had now stopped the noise reports provided did not meet the threshold for a statutory nuisance and it had not received further evidence the diary sheets provided did not have the required level of detail it managed any incidents where the evidence allowed but did not uphold the complaint it agreed to learn from the findings on managing the resident’s expectations and communication from our previous determination
6 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said she could still smell cannabis and said the noise was made worse by water leaks in the upstairs flat.
21 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said: it would arrange an inspection and work with the police to find the source of the cannabis smell and provide updates the recording the resident sent did not meet the threshold for a statutory nuisance it agreed to visit her to ensure she can report noise nuisance and to explain how it can resolve this its assets team confirmed the block met the building regulations standard at the time of construction, and any leaks would not significantly impact noise transfer it did not uphold the complaint
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her ASB since 2021. She felt it had not taken action to address the noise transfer. She wants the landlord to address these issues as the ASB is ongoing.

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 ASB
Finding	Maladministration

We have investigated the landlord’s response to reports of ASB after our most recent determination on 28 November 2024. While the resident complained in January 2025 about the same issues, her most recent reports related to noise, drug dealing, and cannabis. Under the landlord’s ASB policy these issues amounted to ASB which required it to investigate and assess the risk to her.
We have not seen that the resident provided any new reports after 28 November 2024. She provided the landlord with a diary sheet of ASB reported on 1 November 2024. On 15 November 2024 it explained that it needed additional information to investigate the reports. It provided her with advice on the level of detail it needed. This was an appropriate response in line with its ASB policy as it needed sufficient evidence to investigate and act under this policy.
When the resident complained again in January 2025 the landlord explained it had not received further information and we have not seen she provided any. While she told the landlord she could still smell cannabis, she did not provide it with additional detail. The landlord’s request for additional detail over the drug dealing and cannabis use was reasonable.
It did not complete a risk assessment until 28 February 2025 or make enquiries with the police over the cannabis smell until 26 March 2025. These delays were not in line with its ASB policy which required action within 5 working days, where it had assessed the ASB as a standard risk.
While it explained to the resident that the noise reports she made did not meet the threshold of a “statutory nuisance” it failed to explain what action it could take. It did not show it investigated her concerns that a water leak affected the sound insulation. It told her that any leaks would not significantly impact noise transfer between properties. However, it did not explain the basis of this conclusion. In the absence of evidence in the form of sound or insulation tests, we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.
The landlord did not have to improve the level of sound insulation where it complied with the levels required at the time of the property’s construction. However, if the noise was caused by damage to the property structure, including flooring or ceilings, then under the resident’s tenancy it needed to repair this. There is no evidence it inspected the property to determine if it was responsible for repairing anything that might have caused the noise.
The resident told the landlord on 20 March 2025 that she was concerned the neighbour may have placed down flooring which affected noise transfer. She was also concerned that the neighbour may have fitted new hard flooring in breach of their tenancy. The landlord’s tenant handbook requires residents to obtain its permission for improvements.
Our spotlight report on noise complaints (October 2022) identified laminate or hard wood flooring as a potential cause of noise transfer. In this report we recommended landlords consider this, including acting on any breaches of tenancy (recommendation 22). We cannot see that the landlord considered this during the complaint process.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have ordered it to apologise and pay her compensation of £200. This is in line with our compensation guidance where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and put things right. We have also ordered it to inspect to see if there is any property damage it is responsible for and which may have affected the sound insulation. We have also ordered it to inspect if the neighbour has put hard flooring down which has affected sound transfer. We have ordered it to explain how it deals with non-statutory noise nuisance and with alterations made without its permission. As she has told us she still experiences ASB from cannabis smells and drug dealing we have made an order for it to complete an ASB case review relating to these.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The landlord’s policy allows 20 working days for a stage 1 complaint response. This is in contrast to our Code which states stage 1 complaint responses must be issued within 10 working days. The landlord and our duty to monitor team are aware of this discrepancy.
Having said this the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within 8 working days which was in line with our Code. It took it 31 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response, against a target of 20 working days. This delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience but was of short duration and minor. We have ordered it to pay her £50 compensation in line with our compensation guidance. This allows for payments of this amount where there is a service failure of short duration and low impact.

Learning

The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or explain how it would deal with noise that is not a “statutory nuisance”. It is important for landlords to distinguish between ASB and noise which falls short of this and take appropriate and timely action. Our centre for learning offers an eLearning course on our spotlight report on noise complaints and our follow up report on this. It explains how landlords can respond well to noise complaints and improve noise policies and procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was good.

Communication

The landlord failed to explain to the resident how it would manage noise that did not amount to a “statutory nuisance”. It also did not respond to her concerns about a possible breach of tenancy regarding replacement flooring. This meant it lost an opportunity to manage her expectations.