Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202000461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000461

Notting Hill Genesis

29 August 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Scope

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in his current home, a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat since October 2018.
The resident told this service that the landlord’s failure to handle his reports of anti-social behaviour caused the deterioration of his health, in particular the decline in his vision. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health. However, this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The landlord provided limited information in response to the Ombudsman’s request for information regarding this complaint. For example, it was unable to provide evidence such as call logs, notes of visits, etc. This chronology notes where there are gaps or a lack of evidence in the details provided and the investigation then comments further on the landlord’s overall approach to record keeping.’
In January 2020, the resident reported that he was being disturbed by noise coming from the flat above him. The landlord visited the resident in February 2020.However, the landlord was unable to provide the original notes of the outcome of the conversation and visit to the resident, when requested by this service.
In March 2020, the landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord’s call centre approximately three times and once at the beginning of April 2020 to report noise nuisance. Although, the landlord’s records provided for this investigation show that the call centre requested the local officer to return the resident’s calls, they do not demonstrate that the landlord returned those calls, by way of additional call logs and related call notes.
In April 2020, on behalf of the resident, this service raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. This stated that the resident was concerned that he had called the landlord many times about the noise, but the landlord had not responded. As a result the landlord issued its stage one response as follows:
1. It had received the resident’s first report of noise nuisance at the end of January 2020 and visited him on 3 February 2020 where he explained that there was banging coming from the flat above.
2. It visited the resident’s neighbours above on the same day and noted that they were an elderly couple. It checked the flat and explained to the resident that there were no signs of potential causes of the noise he was hearing. It noted that noise was coming from the resident’s neighbour’s toilet when it was flushed, however its contractor inspected the toilet and found no fault.
3. It acknowledged that the resident provided reference numbers for his case with the local authority’s environmental health team and asked the resident to continue to report the incidents to the landlord and to environmental health.
4. It explained that it would be difficult to resolve the noise issues, as there was no independent evidence. It explained that many cases did not go to court as there needed to be strong supporting evidence of anti-social behaviour and said that, although it was not taking action, this did not mean that it did not believe the resident.
5. It acknowledged that the resident was frustrated and upset by the events and asked him to provide completed diary sheets and continue to record incidents. It would also obtain the resident’s records from the local authority’s environmental health team.
6. Once lockdown had ended it would arrange for another home visit and a joint visit with the local authority’s noise nuisance team and it also advised that mediation should be considered.
At the end of April 2020, the resident reported that there were banging noises coming from the neighbouring flat late at night. The landlord’s records fail to demonstrate any action it took from that call, such as any callback and related call notes.
At the end of April/beginning of May 2020, the landlord’s mediator noted that the resident said that the noise was keeping him awake at night and as a consequence he felt depressed. He had tried to engage with his neighbours, but they kept on denying they were causing the problem. He continued to hear noise throughout the days and nights which sounded like a hammer and was starting to affect his mental health. The mediator noted that they had explored different approaches the resident could take with his neighbours to resolve the issues and how he could work with the landlord to explore sound conducting and sound-proofing. The resident stated that the landlord had not responded to his contact.
In May 2020, the resident called the landlord approximately five times to report noise nuisance. The landlord’s records show on occasion that the resident expressed his concerns that it was not calling him back. The landlord’s records fail to demonstrate that it had returned the resident’s calls by way of call logs for returned calls and related notes.
On 13 May 2020, it appears the resident emailed the landlord on approximately three separate occasions. He explained that he had called many times and had spoken to the local authority environmental health department. He believed that the noise was a result of poor sound insulation and did not think it was the fault of his neighbours. However, he was waking up during the night because of the noise, he suffered from chronic daily migraines and the issue was affecting his mental health. The landlord’s records provided to this service for this investigation, fail to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident acknowledged that the landlord had visited him in February 2020 and he believed what it witnessed and what it wrote in its response were two different things because it was established at the visit that the issue was not the resident’s neighbour’s toilet. He explained that the doors made a noise when they were opened and closed which the landlord had not investigated, and asked for help. He also stated that he would not respond to any correspondence from the landlord and would contact a different organisation.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord approximately three times in June 2020. However, the records fail to demonstrate that it returned those calls. The landlord was unable to provide this evidence, when requested by this service.
The supporting evidence provided for this investigation demonstrates that there was no contact between the resident and the landlord from July 2020 until December 2020 when the resident contacted the landlord to report that banging noises were coming from his neighbour’s flat. The landlord’s records fail to demonstrate the action it took in response to the resident’s calls.
In the same month, this service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and requested it escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The landlord stated that the resident’s earlier correspondence in May 2020 indicated that he did not want to escalate his complaint to stage two or want to engage with it. Nonetheless, it agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two.
On 8 January 2021, the resident reported further noise nuisance to the landlord and stated that the issue may be with the building. The landlord noted that the resident needed a call back and that he was concerned that the landlord had not done anything with his reports and wanted to know what the landlord’s next steps were.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that it was aware that he was not satisfied with the stage one response about the noise nuisance, however it felt that it was more beneficial to meet with him and his support worker to discuss his concerns, than reviewing the resident’s complaint at stage two. It confirmed that it would meet the resident and his support worker on 13 January 2021.
The landlord recorded the outcome of the visit with the resident as follows:
1. The resident explained that the banging noises were coming from two neighbours. He had called the local authority’s noise team who advised him that they could not come out to visit him and that he should contact his landlord.
2. The resident’s support worker stated that he should do the same and not to contact his neighbours as the police were now involved and the situation was escalating.
3. The resident stated that his neighbours above moved their furniture at 6:30am that morning which woke him up. He did not want anyone to live above or around him. The landlord noted that it had advised the resident that, as he lived in London, there would always be people nearby.
4. The landlord warned the resident about banging on the walls of his neighbour and asked him to stop. It explained that, when lockdown was over, it would look into using an independent expert witness to visit and witness the noise in the resident’s home.
In May 2021, the resident reported that one of his neighbours was harassing him and had called the police on him stating that he had hit them, which was not true. There is no evidence to show that it had returned the resident’s call and the outcome of that call.
In June 2021, the resident called the landlord approximately three times to report noise nuisance and discuss his case. The landlord’s records fail to demonstrate that it returned the resident’s calls and if it did, the outcome of those calls
In July 2021, the resident reported that there was ongoing issues, the landlord’s records fail to demonstrate whether the landlord returned the resident’s call and the outcome of any call.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident a transfer application so he could be placed on its housing bidding system.
In August 2021, the resident called the landlord approximately seven times to discuss his reports of noise nuisance, he expressed on a few occasions that he wanted a different member of staff to manage his case. On one call, he reported that his neighbour had threatened to kill him and he felt unsafe in his property and had reported the incident to the police. The landlord failed to provide evidence that it had returned the resident’s call by way of call notes and any relevant follow up actions. The landlord was unable to provide this evidence, when requested by this service.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord noted that there were counter allegations against the resident where his neighbour stated that he had banged on the wall, ‘attacked’ his neighbour with his walking stick and had allegedly shouted abuse at their children.
In its internal communication, the landlord confirmed that it had spoken to the resident about his neighbour’s claims. The resident apologised for raising his voice at a member of staff the last time he had spoken to them and was willing to discuss the situation further. The landlord noted that it was not a ‘major ASB’ problem but appeared to be a noise issue and a civil dispute. The landlord requested for a member of staff to arrange a meeting with the resident.
This service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident who wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage two, subsequently, the landlord noted in its internal communication on 26 August 2021 the following:
1. It had confirmed with the resident that it would review his complaint, its response at stage one, and it would also look into how it had handled his reports of noise nuisance before it proceeded to a review.
2. It would send the resident diary sheets to complete which he would send to the landlord on a monthly basis.
3. It would speak to its legal caseworker to review what was the appropriate action and would arrange for an independent witness to visit the resident on three different occasions at different times to witness the noise and report on the noise nuisance.
4. It would visit the resident on 14 September 2021, where it would discuss his options for a move and collect the resident’s transfer application form, diary sheets and explain how he could apply for a mutual exchange through an independent housing website. It noted that the resident was happy with the landlord’s proposed action, and both agreed that the landlord would not carry out a review, but it was open to him in the future.
In September 2021, the resident called the landlord approximately three times to report noise nuisance and the ongoing issues. The landlord’s records failed to demonstrate that it had returned the resident’s calls and failed to record the outcome and any follow up actions from any returned calls. The landlord was unable to provide this evidence, when requested by this service.
On 19 September 2021, the police informed the landlord that it had closed a case the resident had with them as they did not find evidence to take the case further. However, they explained that they had submitted a report to their safer neighbourhood team, so they could be aware of the tension between the resident and his neighbour.
In early October 2021, the landlord and the safer communities from the local authority discussed the resident’s concerns which included the following:
1. The landlord stated that there was not enough evidence to issue any formal action, it had visited both residents and offered mediation, which both declined.
2. The resident’s neighbour explained to the landlord that the resident continued to bang on the wall and the landlord believed that he was reacting to household noise, such his neighbours opening and closing their kitchen cupboards. The landlord had advised both residents to not speak to each other and for the resident to not bang on the wall and both to contact the police if they felt threatened.
3. The safer community team explained that although the landlord may have not been able to carry out any formal action, it needed to carry out some intervention to mitigate any risks and escalations and asked the landlord to give the resident a call about the threats he received from his neighbour.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the independent witness would resume its services in November 2021 and said it now understood that the resident wanted to proceed to stage two of its complaint process and apologised for the delay in escalating his request.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response as follows:
1. It had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB/noise nuisance in line with its domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy.
2. It had liaised with the police who were currently monitoring the case, but were not currently taking any further action. It advised the resident to contact the police to report any future incidents.
3. It acknowledged that the resident felt frustrated with the noise from the kitchen, but asked him to refrain from banging on his neighbours’ walls and continue to complete diary sheets and contact the local authority’s noise team.
4. It reiterated that it had visited the resident’s other neighbours in early 2020 and detailed the outcome of the visit.
5. It would arrange for an independent witness to attend his home to gain evidence of noise nuisance once its service re-opened in November 2021. It needed to have evidence based on the feedback of the independent witness and diary sheets in order to take action against his neighbours.
6. It would also review whether it would manage the resident’s case under its ASB policy which would lead to additional measures and legal action being taken where applicable, which was again based on evidence.
7. It noted that it issued its stage one response outside of its 10 day deadline, apologised and offered the resident £50 as compensation for the service failure.
8. It also noted that it had not escalated the resident’s stage two response when he had requested and therefore had not followed its complaint procedure and offered the resident £250 compensation for this failure.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord issued a review of its complaint and stated that it had contacted the independent witness service, who confirmed that their services were still suspended. It would support the resident with a mutual exchange and registration with homeswapper, an independent mutual exchange housing site, and would buy some white noise equipment for the flat, to help reduce the noise in the flat. It increased its original compensation offer from £250 to £400 for its failures in handling the resident’s complaint, and asked him to contact it, if he was interested in taking up any of the offers.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident continued to report noise nuisance and asked the landlord to support him to complete the housing transfer application in 2022 and 2023.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbour dispute policy and guidance stated the following:
1. A neighbour dispute was a disagreement between two or more residents which did not represent a tenancy breach but was affecting the resident’s enjoyment of their home, for example domestic noise.
2. Staff should set clear expectations with residents and emphasise that the resident will need to engage with the other party to successfully resolve the dispute. Unless the matter becomes a tenancy breach or anti-social behaviour, it is very unlikely that any legal action will be taken.
3. Domestic noise is noise caused by every day, daytime household activities. This included noise from household appliances and banging doors. It excluded instances where the noise was too loud or amplified, which was considered noise nuisance and dealt with as ASB.
4. The aim of any intervention is to help the parties in the dispute resolve the issue before it escalates to a tenancy breach and/or anti-social behaviour, and to prevent the dispute from re-occurring.
5. If the vulnerable person has a support worker, carer or similar, then they should be involved as far as possible in resolving the dispute.
6. Records should be kept of any reports of disputes, actions taken and the outcomes of these, in case the dispute should later escalate to anti-social behaviour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance

It is clear that the resident reported noise disturbances to the landlord on several occasions throughout this case. Whilst the landlord visited the resident in February 2020, which was appropriate, and explained to the resident that he needed to continue to provide diary sheets. It failed to demonstrate that it adequately managed the resident’s reports thereafter, when the resident continued to raise his concerns of noise disturbance. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s calls went unanswered which undoubtedly contributed to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to agree to a contact schedule with the resident at that stage to reduce the time and trouble spent by the resident chasing for updates on his case. This would not have only given structure to the case, offering both the resident and landlord guidance on the direction of where the case was going, and potentially reducing any escalation of the issues. It would have also given the resident reassurance that the landlord was taking his reports seriously.
The landlord advised the resident in April 2020 to contact the local authority’s noise team, which he did and to record any disturbances in the diary sheets. It also set realistic expectations when it explained to the resident that it was difficult to resolve cases such as his, as there was no independent evidence. It empathised and acknowledged the resident’s frustration. It was also appropriate for the landlord to recommend a mediator for the resident to work with, which he did.
The resident raised his concerns that the building did not have adequate noise insulation in May 2020 and again in January 2021. Whilst the landlord stated that it had checked the resident’s home in February 2020 and found no signs of the cause of the noise, it is not clear what checks it carried out that led to its conclusion.
Furthermore, as the landlord failed to provide its records of the outcome of the visit, the Ombudsman cannot say that those checks were adequate. The landlord explained to this service as part of this complaint, that the resident’s building was built in 2015 and was in line with building regulations at time. Whilst this may be the case, it did not take into consideration and investigate the possibility of any defects or issues that may have arisen since. It also failed to demonstrate that it acknowledged and addressed the resident’s concerns when he raised them.
It is not clear which doors the resident was referring to in May 2020, when he stated that the noise coming from doors opening and closing was contributing to the overall noise disturbance. The landlord failed to acknowledge and investigate his concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his concerns and explain what solutions were available to him.
The resident stated in May 2020, that the noise disturbance was affecting his mental health and explained that he suffered from chronic migraines and the noise was affecting his sleep. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acknowledged and addressed his concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to support services, where relevant. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord met the resident’s support worker in January 2021, however it is not clear when this support was first provided.
The landlord stated in its stage one response in April 2020 that it would carry out another home visit once the lockdown ended, which it failed to do so. It is crucial that a landlord ensures that any actions set out in a complaint response are progressed in a reasonable timeframe to put things right, which it failed to do in this case.
The resident continued to report noise disturbances in 2021 and again the landlord failed to demonstrate what reasonable actions it took following these calls. It also appears that incidents escalated in the same period, with the resident reporting that his neighbour had threatened him, and had counter allegations made against him by his neighbour. It is clear that the landlord failed to demonstrate to the resident and to this service its position and what it could and could not do with the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
Although it referred to conversations it had with the resident in its internal communication and communication with the community safety team, the landlord failed to provide evidence to this service of any outcome of the calls and visits it referred to.
It is not clear which policy the landlord followed when it managed the resident’s case. In its stage one response it referred to the issues as anti-social behaviour, whilst in its stage two response it stated that it had followed its domestic noise and neighbour disputes policy. This reflects the landlord’s lack of direction and structure whilst handling this case which negatively impacted the resident.
Whilst the resident was rightly informed at the beginning of the case that the landlord could not take any action as there was no evidence of tenancy breaches, it failed to be consistent with its advice throughout and at times it appeared to give the resident mixed messages and unrealistic expectations on what it could and could not do. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to stay consistent it with its message that the noise did not constitute as ASB. Furthermore, it is strongly recommended by this service in its October 2022 Noise complaint spotlight report, that noise transfer between homes should not be investigated under a landlord’s ASB policy.
For example, the landlord stated in its stage two response in October 2021 that it had investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB under its domestic noise and neighbour disputes. However, it failed to explain to the resident what that meant. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain that it deemed that the noise was domestic noise from his neighbour’s opening and shutting their kitchen cupboards and what that meant in terms of proportionate action it could take, if any. Instead, the landlord asked the resident to continue to complete diary sheets and report the noise to the local authority. This may have set unrealistic expectations on what it could and could not do for the resident and was a disproportionate response to the issues being reported.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had referred the case to an independent witness, which was appropriate, however due to COVID-19 restrictions the service was not available at that time.
The landlord stated that it would support the resident with his transfer application and explained that it would visit him in September 2021, although the records fail to demonstrate whether this visit went ahead. In addition, the landlord’s records show that in 2022 and in 2023 the resident requested support with completing his transfer application, however it failed to demonstrate whether it followed up these requests.
The landlord failed to provide, when asked by this service, evidence on how it monitored and managed this case. Whilst it is noted that the domestic noise and neighbour dispute policy reasonably focused on residents taking the lead to resolve non-tenancy breach issues it did not include provision for the landlord to monitor such cases. It is of the Ombudsman opinion that the policy or its guidance would benefit from such a provision to allow for relevant cases to be monitored and closed where appropriate. This would allow both the resident and landlord to take appropriate actions within reasonable timeframes and allow structure and order to cases.
Overall, amongst other failures stated above, the landlord failed to keep in reasonable contact with the resident, monitor the resident’s case appropriately, and failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.

Complaint handling

Whilst the landlord’s stage one response explained that without evidence, it would not be able to take action on his reports of noise disturbance, and adequately set the resident’s expectations, it did not address the resident’s concerns that it was not returning his calls. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate and address these concerns in its response. It would have also been appropriate, at that stage, for the landlord to set a reasonable contact schedule with the resident. This would have demonstrated further to the resident that the landlord was taking his reports seriously.
As part of this investigation the landlord explained that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint in May 2021because the resident did not explicitly state that he wanted to. It referred to the resident’s last paragraphs in his correspondence in May 2021, which stated that he would not respond to the landlord and would contact another organisation. Whilst this may be the case, the landlord failed to take into consideration the resident’s response in its entirety, which also included a request for the landlord’s support. It would have been appropriate at that time, for the landlord to confirm with the resident whether he wanted to escalate his complaint, if it was not clear. Moreover, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had responded to the resident at all.
The resident requested for his complaint to be escalated in December 2020, however, although the landlord acknowledged his request, it made a decision to not escalate the complaint and instead visited the resident to discuss his concerns. Whilst the visit was appropriate, this should not have replaced the landlord’s review of the resident’s complaint at stage two, and it is concerning that it made that decision, more so without the explicit agreement with the resident.
Failing to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two, without a satisfactory reason, and where the landlord’s complaint policy does not allow for the landlord to make such a decision, especially without discussing it with the resident, is a service failure.
The resident again requested to escalate his complaint in August 2021, and again the landlord stated that it would proceed with the stage two complaint process. However, when it visited the resident in September 2021, whilst it is unclear who initiated the conversation, it was agreed between the two parties that the landlord would not escalate the complaint to stage two. Whilst this may be the case, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it was inappropriate for the landlord to once again fail to escalate the resident’s complaint. Although again, it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident to discuss his case, it should have honoured the resident’s complaint escalation request. The visit could have been recorded separately from the complaint or incorporated within the landlord’s stage two response, if the landlord deemed it to be relevant and appropriate.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that its stage one response was issued outside of its 10 working day deadline and offered the resident £50 compensation which was reasonable redress. It also acknowledged that it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint when he requested and offered the resident in its final review of his complaint in January 2022, £400 compensation, for its failures in its complaint handling. It also offered the resident support with his mutual exchange process and white noise equipment which was reasonable redress.
The Ombudsman notes that the local officer responded to the resident’s stage one response which is line with the landlord’s complaint policy. However, this service’s complaint handling code states that a resident’s complaint should be handled by a member of staff that is not involved in the substantive issue, a recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its complaint policy and procedure against the complaints handling code.
Overall, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Record keeping

Whilst the landlord provided this service with logs of the incoming calls from the resident to its call centre and the notes from those calls, it failed to provide, when requested, call notes/logs from any returned calls it made to the resident about his concerns about noise disturbance. It also failed to provide, when requested, the outcome of the visits it referred to in its internal communication and complaint responses, which is of concern.
More so, it failed to follow its own domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy which stated ‘Records should be kept of any reports of disputes, actions taken and the outcomes of these, in case the dispute should later escalate to anti-social behaviour.’ Therefore, it failed to demonstrate to the resident and to this service that it had adequately handled the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
The landlord failed to confirm whether the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was managed as an ASB case or similar and failed to provide the full casefile when asked by this service. For example, although there is evidence that it referred the resident to a mediator, it failed to provide any evidence of the complete process from start to finish. It did not include its original referral and its subsequent position once the mediation ended. It also did not confirm whether it received any completed diary sheets from the resident when asked by this service.
These gaps in its record keeping have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken in its overall management of the issues raised by the resident, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it managed the resident’s reports of noise disturbance adequately. It is evident that the resident called the landlord to report noise disturbances many times over a prolonged period, which appears to have been unanswered at times by the landlord. The landlord did not have a structure in place to manage the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, which inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns about the lack of noise insulation in the building, and did not address his concerns that the noise disturbance was affecting his mental health.
The landlord acknowledged that it issued its stage one complaint response late and offered the resident £50 compensation which was reasonable. Upon its review of its complaint handling it acknowledged that it failed to handle the resident’s complaint adequately and offered the resident £400 compensation, which was reasonable redress.
The landlord failed to provide, when asked by this service, crucial supporting evidence to demonstrate that it had managed the resident’s reports of noise disturbance adequately, by way of notes of the outcome of its calls to and from the resident (outside the call centre calls) and original notes from visits to the resident. Without this information the landlord failed to demonstrate to the resident and this service that it managed the resident’s reports of noise nuisance adequately.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,300 compensation within four weeks of this determination which comprises of:
1. £500 for its failure to handle the resident’s reports of noise disturbance adequately.
2. £350 for its failure to keep adequate records.
3. £450 compensation it already offered the resident for its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
The landlord must, if not done so already and where appropriate, support the resident with his transfer application and provide evidence to this service that it has done so within four weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must confirm with the resident whether he would like to be signposted to any support services.
The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the issue of this report to confirm what information it should hold on its records about his mental health.
If the noise disturbance is ongoing, the landlord must explain to the resident the policy it is currently managing it under, and what that means for the resident. If it currently deems the noise disturbance to be domestic noise, it must explain to the resident what this means and it what it can and cannot do in terms of solutions. It must also refer the resident’s case to an independent witness, if appropriate to do so within four weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must carry out an investigation of any defects that could cause noise transfer within the building, using an expert person, and report back to the resident and this service within 12 weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must remind its staff the importance of timely and accurate record keeping, including the negative impact it can have on the resident and itself, by using this report as an example, and provide evidence that it has done so within four weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must reoffer to buy the resident white noise equipment, and provide evidence that it has done so, within four weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes the following actions:
1. Review its complaint handling code against this this service’s complaint handling code, in particular, taking into consideration that the code recommends complaints should not be handled by members of staff that have involvement in the substantive complaint.
2. Review its knowledge and information strategy, against this services ‘Knowledge and information management 2023’ spotlight report. If it currently does not have one, it is strongly recommended that it implements one.
3. Review its ASB policy and its Domestic noise and neighbour dispute policy against this services October 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints.