Notting Hill Genesis (202324082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324082

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

8 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise nuisance from the property above.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
The resident has reported issues with noise from the upstairs property for many years prior to this complaint. The property above is also a leasehold property which is rented out.
In December 2022, following further reports of noise, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had written to the leaseholder of the upstairs property to remind them to be mindful of noise in the property. Following this, the leaseholder confirmed it would place a rug in the relevant room, which the landlord relayed to the resident.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord confirmed the leaseholder had put rugs down. The resident advised on 23 March 2023 that the noise continued. Following this the landlord offered to complete a sound survey.
In March 2023, the resident also contacted the local authority who told the resident it had written to the property in question with regards to the noise but said the noise was likely due to poor sound insulation in the property and advised the resident to speak to the landlord.
The landlord’s internal surveyor completed the sound survey on 21 April 2023. The survey found the flooring in the above property to be in satisfactory condition. It confirmed the noise level transmitted between the flats was low with no noise heard or noted from the flat above.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 July 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. She had reported the issue with the noise many times yet had no resolution, the leaseholder had laid no carpet and despite asking the leaseholder herself, they had not soundproofed the apartment.
2. She had contacted the local authority who informed her responsibility for soundproofing the building lay with the landlord.
3. She questioned the validity of the sound test completed by the surveyor.
4. The resident was dissatisfied with the neighbourhood officer and the length of time taken to respond to her queries.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that in an earlier stage 1 complaint about the same issue it had recommended that the resident speak to the local authority.
2. It had spoken to the leaseholder who confirmed they had done everything they could except lay carpet to minimise the noise disturbance.
3. With regards to the neighbourhood officer, it confirmed the member of staff had moved forward with investigations and done all it could to help the resident.
4. It confirmed that as the resident believed the issue to be a building issue it would undertake further investigation.
5. With regards to the survey completed, it reiterated the results and explained the tests undertaken on the day to come to the conclusion it did.
6. It said the next step would be to carry out an independent sound test but advised if it found the noise levels to be acceptable, the resident would be liable for the charges.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 August 2023. She would not pay for a sound engineer to complete testing and did not understand why the landlord could not make the leaseholder lay carpet in the property.
The landlord asked for an extension for it stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. It provided its response on 2 October 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It asked the resident to share the report she had received from the local authority in relation to the soundproofing so that it could investigate further.
2. It believed the local authority had assessed the noise as not meeting the threshold for antisocial behaviour (ASB) and told her there was potential for a lack of insulation to be causing the noise nuisance.
3. It confirmed that the insulation met building regulation standards at the time of the build and therefore it needed no further soundproofing. But the resident was welcome to soundproof her own ceiling and recommended that the resident consult a surveyor.
4. It was unable to force the leaseholder to install carpet in the property, but confirmed the leaseholder had laid underlay at the same time as the wooden flooring.
5. It confirmed the resident had made multiple complaints on the issue since 2013 and it had made many attempts to offer a solution. It was unable to enforce the terms of the lease as the noise level did need meet the threshold for ASB. It confirmed it had reiterated this throughout the many complaints.
6. It offered £100 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
The resident responded on 6 October 2023 to say the local authority had not completed a report but said soundproofing was a landlord’s responsibility. She asked the landlord why she should pay for soundproofing when it was the neighbours making the sound. She continued to report further noise complaints.
The landlord responded on 22 November 2023 to say it had previously suggested specialist sound testing but the resident had refused. It gave further advice on referring the complaint to this Service.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience and asked the leaseholder of the upstairs property be ordered to lay carpet.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands that since 2013 the resident has raised many complaints with the landlord about the same issue raised in this investigation. We may only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and that were brought to us within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. Therefore, while we understand this issue has been going on for a significant period, this investigation will focus on the period surrounding this complaint which was January to October 2023. Any mention of the issue outside of this period is for context only.

Policies and procedures.

The landlord has a domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy. On receiving a complaint of domestic noise, it advises a resident to discuss the issue with the neighbour directly in the first instance. It will support residents in doing this. Where a resident feels they are dealing with excessive noise nuisance, which is noise outside the hours of 7am and 11pm, it recommends that residents discuss this with the local authority.

The landlord’s handling of the resident reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs property.

It is positive that the landlord has an individual policy for tackling neighbour disputes and domestic noise, separate to its ASB policy. This is good practice and supports the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise report (October 2022). A policy such as this shows a commitment to taking residents reports of noise seriously even when they do not meet the threshold for ASB or a statutory noise nuisance.
The report encourages landlords to handle these noise reports sensitively and proportionately. There is evidence that the landlord did both; it was never dismissive of any of the resident’s issues with the neighbour and responded in line with its policy. The landlord was empathetic and took an evidence based approach, and whilst at times this was frustrating for the resident, the landlord explained its limitations when evidence was insufficient.
When the resident reported the issue with noise from the upstairs property again in December 2022, the landlord appropriately wrote to the leaseholder of that property to ask it to be mindful of any noise. Given the history of the case, it was appropriate of the landlord to help with communication between the resident and the leaseholder.
Furthermore, it asked the leaseholder to consider putting a rug down in the room in question and continued to liaise with the leaseholder until they confirmed they had done so. This was in line with its policy which says it will support residents in communicating with neighbours and showed a commitment by the landlord to help in resolving the situation.
It also confirmed with the leaseholder that they had used the right underlay when they laid the wooden floor some years prior to ensure the insulation was in place and therefore ensuring the noise was not due to a lack of underlay. This again highlighted a commitment by the landlord to help resolve the issue for the resident.
During the complaint, the resident asked that the leaseholder be made to lay carpet in the upstairs property, which the landlord declined to do on the basis that the lease did not prohibit the use of wooden flooring. It is reasonable to assume that the lease is standard for the block and therefore, the landlord’s position was correct. Furthermore, the landlord instead encouraging the laying of rugs and checking how the flooring was installed was reasonable in this case.
When the resident reported that the rug had made no difference, the landlord said it would be able to undertake a sound test with its own internal surveyor. While not obligated to do so, it was useful of the landlord to offer this to understand the nature of the issue and learn if it could take any further action.
Given that the sound test concluded that no noise transference was clear, the landlord appropriately advised that the only other action it could take would be to arrange for an external acoustic sound test.
The landlord advised, if such a test found no issue, the resident would be liable for these costs. We understand the resident was dissatisfied with this, however, where the noise levels do not meet the threshold for ASB or statutory noise nuisance there is no obligation on the landlord to take any action. Therefore, it was reasonable for the resident to be liable for the cost in this instance.
Following the sound test by the landlord’s internal surveyor, the resident disputed the validity of the test. While the ombudsman understands the resident’s position, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion if its qualified surveyors to make sound judgements and undertake tests correctly.
During the complaint process, the resident mentioned that the local authority informed her that the landlord was responsible for soundproofing the building. The landlord helpfully clarified that the building met the regulations in place at the time, and therefore, it would not take further action to insulate the property.
In making this statement, the landlord was correct that building regulations were not retrospective, and it would not be required to install soundproofing to the current levels. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to say it would take no further action to insulate the property.
Additionally, the landlord told the resident that she could install soundproofing herself in the property. As the leaseholder, the resident holds responsibility for the internal parts of the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide advice on taking such steps and to explain why it was not responsible for undertaking the suggestions itself.
Throughout her complaint, the resident expressed that she felt the neighbourhood officer had not helped resolve the issue or progressed with investigations. However, the evidence provided by the landlord shows that the neighbourhood officer was in regular contact with the resident. The officer liaised with the other leaseholder when the resident reported noise, encouraged the leaseholder to remind tenants to keep noise to a minimum, and kept the resident regularly updated on the actions taken.
Furthermore, when such allegations are made, we expect the landlord to conduct a reasonable investigation. In this case, the landlord appropriately detailed in its complaint response that it had reviewed the communications between the neighbourhood officer, the resident, and other involved third parties. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the neighbourhood officer had been proactive and helpful in this situation.
We acknowledge that the resident found the noise levels from the neighbouring property difficult to endure and that the situation has been distressing for her. However, throughout this case, the landlord acted empathetically towards the resident’s concerns. It liaised with the leaseholder of the upstairs flat, reminding them to be mindful of noise. The landlord provided the resident with appropriate advice on installing her own soundproofing and explained that it could not take further action as it considered the noise to be day-to-day noise. It undertook a sound test to investigate the noise further. Additionally, it offered to undertake further testing when the resident remained dissatisfied. The landlord’s communication with the resident was effective, and its response was in line with its policy.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise nuisance from the property above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the property above.