Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214883)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214883

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 November 2024

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

1. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference and associated repairs to the building.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour subletting their property.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy from March 2011 of a second-floor, one-bedroom flat in a building owned by the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for or disclosed by the resident. The neighbour who all the resident’s concerns relate to, lives in the property directly above hers and is also a tenant of the landlord.
On 31 March 2021, the resident reported ASB from her neighbour including a recording of “banging”. The landlord opened an ASB case on 1 April. It asked the resident to complete log sheets of noise, but she refused to do this. Between 1 April and 20 December, the resident reported noise and ASB from her neighbour on 10 April, 26 May, 13 June, 15 July and 1, 3 and 4 October. This included noise after 10:00 pm of a child making noise, drilling, and hoovering. The resident also said smoke from drug taking was entering her property and her neighbour was subletting their property.
Between the same period, 1 April, and 20 December 2022 the landlord took the following action:
1. It asked the resident to report noise nuisance to the local authority’s noise pollution team. It asked her to do this on 1 April and 15 July. The local authority (LA) confirmed she had made reports to it in June and October. It said it was unable to install noise monitoring equipment (NME) or visit due to COVID-19 restrictions. The LA said it “did not generally record children” based on “case law.” It believed the noise reported by the resident was “normal living noise.”
2. It asked the resident to report concerns about her neighbour taking drugs to the police. It said it had previously written to all residents in the building to report drug taking to the police. It said it was continuing to investigate her concerns that her neighbour was subletting their property.
3. It continued to ask the resident to complete log sheets of the noise on 15 July and 20 December. It said it would close the case if it had no evidence from log sheets or reports to the LA or police. It said it needed this information to take “further action” against the neighbour. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and they had refuted all allegations.
4. It offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour on 15 July. It is uncertain if the resident accepted the landlord’s offer. It referred her and her neighbour for mediation on 20 December. It is unclear if the resident attended this referral. It offered a mental health support referral to the resident on 20 December. The resident declined this offer.
The resident sent email correspondence to the landlord dated 4 August 2022 confirming the police had been informed of ASB matters. The correspondence further illustrated the police were unable to act upon the matter, however, passed this to the safer neighbourhood team
On 19 July 2022, the landlord confirmed with the LA the resident had made no reports to the LA in 2022. It told the resident the same day it would close the ASB case. It said for it to “take action” against the neighbour it needed evidence. It said it could ask the LA to install NME. It also asked her if she was “open to mediation.” The resident replied the same day that she did not want mediation and that the noise was “transferring from all surrounding flats.” The LA installed NME on 2 November following a request from the landlord on 18 August. The LA analysed the recordings on 2 December 2022 finding transference of noise from other properties due to “poor sound insulation.” It found the noise was not at a level of a “statutory noise nuisance.” The LA refused the resident’s request for further recordings as it “stood by its report” of “adequate recordings.”
The resident raised a complaint on 13 October 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 November and stated the following:
1. There was a wider issue with the building with noise deflection “getting worse over time.” It said a structural engineer had refused work to secure the structural frame and this was not a “feasible option.” It said it was looking at short and long-term measures. It said it would keep the resident updated with a plan of action.
2. It said it had reminded her neighbour of his responsibilities under his tenancy agreement for himself and his visitors. It said the LA had installed noise monitoring equipment and would wait for its findings. It could find no evidence the neighbour was subletting his property but would continue to investigate the matter. It confirmed it had emailed her a transfer application form as she had previously enquired about transferring property.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 January 2023. It told the resident although she said the issues had been ongoing for 11 years it could only consider the previous 12 months in accordance with its complaint’s procedure. It told the resident the following:
1. Its stage 1 response failed to consider the noise nuisance issue on the resident’s “individual basis.” It said it failed to visit when it received the resident’s report, but it was delayed in doing this. It “missed the opportunity” to resolve any day-to-day repairs to minimise noise transference. It said it was testing a solution in its communal lobby area. It said it would arrange to inspect the resident’s property in 28 days and identify any repairs needed. It upheld this part of her complaint and offered £700 compensation.
2. From April 2021 it had asked the resident to complete diary sheets, but she had not done this. It correctly told her to report noise concerns to the LA’s environmental health team and concerns about drugs to the police. It had also offered her mediation. It said it failed to complete an action plan or risk assessment with the resident. It also failed to visit the neighbour to discuss the reports promptly. It agreed to visit her and her neighbour within 28 days to discuss ongoing issues and agree on an action plan. It upheld this part of her complaint and offered £250 compensation.
3. It found no evidence of the neighbour subletting their property. It spoke to them, and they denied doing this. It said it would continue to investigate with the LA and would take enforcement action if the property was “not being used correctly.” It did not uphold this part of her complaint.
4. It said it could send a further transfer application form. It would consider her a “band A” which it said was the “highest band available.” It said she was able to bid on further properties.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 8 May 2023. The resident said the noise issue had been ongoing for 12 years. She said the landlord told her to report her noise complaints to the LA, but she had already “logged more than 22”. In April 2024, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it had completed successful testing of repairs to the flooring in the communal hallway. It said it was delayed in completing work in the properties in the building due to its contractor “falling into administration.” It is uncertain if it has since completed this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident stated that the noise nuisance issues from her neighbour and the building affecting her property have been ongoing for 10 years. The Ombudsman appreciates that this may be a longstanding issue, however, it would not be effective for the Ombudsman to consider events dating back 10 years. The records may not be available, memories fade and staff members may have come and gone. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider complaints which are raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. As the resident made her complaint to the landlord in October 2022 the Ombudsman would normally consider events from October 2021 onwards. However, as the landlord has considered events from 31 March 2021 in its complaint responses, the Ombudsman will consider all events from this date onwards.
The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident said that her mental and physical health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of ASB and noise from her neighbour and the building. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving her property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

The Tenancy Agreement confirms the resident is not to cause or allow visitors to cause nuisance or annoyance to another tenant. The resident is not allowed to play any media or noise so loudly it causes nuisance or annoyance or can be heard outside the premises between 11 pm and 7:30 am. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the same tenancy obligations apply to them also.
The landlord’s Domestic Nosie and Neighbourhood Dispute Policy encourages residents to be mindful of how their lifestyle might impact others. It aims to support residents to resolve differences at the earliest opportunity on matters not appropriate to its ASB Policy. It can support residents with talking, offer mediation, remind residents of their obligations, and consider minor changes in properties such as adjusting doors or recommending carpet or increased underlay in rooms. If the situation escalates it will enact its ASB Policy.
The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms when it receives a report it must interview the resident. It will establish the nature of the report and the impact on the resident. It will complete an action plan, which details the frequency of further contact and also complete a risk assessment with them. Once this is done it will speak with the alleged perpetrator. The policy defines ASB under 3 categories:
1. Serious and/or risk of harm. It will encourage residents to report concerns to the police. If the case is not taken up by the police, it will interview the resident in 1 working day.
2. No serious or immediate risk of harm. It will complete an interview with the resident in 5 working days.
3. A neighbour dispute. If not considered ASB it will offer assistance but will explain actions are “likely to be limited.”
The ASB Policy confirms the landlord will work in collaboration with other agencies to “effectively tackle incidents of ASB.” It will gather evidence including a log diary from the victim, CCTV footage and audio recordings or noise tests. It will include agencies such as the police and LA to support this. If it has insufficient evidence of ASB to take further action against a perpetrator it will monitor the case. It will not keep cases open indefinitely and will give advance notice of 1 week to residents before closing a case. If it has sufficient evidence of ASB it will consider “proportionate action” including legal action.
Between 31 March and 20 December 2021, the resident made the following reports of noise nuisance or ASB to the landlord.
1. The resident reported a loud banging on 31 March 2021. The landlord responded the following day in accordance with its policy. It listened to the resident’s recording and took the appropriate step of opening an ASB case against the resident’s neighbour. It confirmed it would speak with the resident by 6 April, which would have been within the 5 working day timescale for a “no serious or immediate risk of harm” case. It is unclear from the landlord’s records however whether it spoke with the resident on or before 6 April 2021. When it did discuss her reports with her it suitably informed her to keep record logs of the noise and to report the noise nuisance to the LA’s noise pollution team.
2. The resident reported on 10 April 2021 she had a “sleepless night” due to noise from children at her neighbour’s property. There is no evidence of the landlord responding directly to this report from the resident. Its failure to respond caused uncertainty distress and inconvenience to the resident. The LA would later confirm to the landlord on 30 September it did not usually investigate noise from children, based on case law. There is no evidence of the landlord ever explaining this to the resident, causing uncertainty to her over the issue.
3. On 26 May 2021 she reported her neighbour had been using his washing machine in the “early hours”. The landlord took the appropriate step of speaking to the neighbour about using their washing machine at an appropriate time. This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue amicably before the issue escalated.
4. On 15 July 2021, the resident reported her neighbour was “smoking drugs” and the smoke was entering her property through the windows. The landlord informed her the same day to raise this with the police. This was appropriate advice and in accordance with its ASB Policy. It is uncertain if the resident took this step. Any further inaction by the resident or police did not absolve the landlord of its responsibility. There is no evidence the landlord chased this up. It could have considered this with or without police intervention as part of a comprehensive investigation into the neighbour. The landlord also offered mediation for the noise-related issues. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB and noise nuisance policies. It is uncertain if the resident accepted this offer.
5. The resident reported noise from her neighbour after 10 pm on 1, 3 and 4 October 2021. On 20 December, the landlord said it had spoken to the neighbour about not completing DIY or hoovering after 10 pm. It’s stage 2 response would confirm this took place in October 2021. This suggests it completed this in an appropriate timescale.
Other than speaking with the neighbour about his washing machine, the landlord failed to discuss all other issues with them until October 2021. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 2 complaint response. This was an inappropriate timescale and not in accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy. Its failure to act quickly meant it could not have a frank discussion with the neighbour about the issues reported. This did not allow the neighbour to consider how their “lifestyle affected the resident” and make any appropriate changes.
Between 31 March and 20 December 2021, the landlord failed to complete an action plan with the resident to advise her of its frequency of response. It also failed to complete a risk assessment with the resident. Therefore, it was not able to establish if there was any degree of risk and if the resident needed any further support. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge it had not completed an action plan or risk assessment. The stage 2 response did acknowledge these failures however and offered an apology and compensation.
From 20 December 2021 to 26 July 2022 there is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident about the ASB case. This caused uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to her. Had it put an action plan in place from the beginning of the case the landlord would have been better placed to monitor the case and check in with the resident. There is no evidence of reports from the resident during this period. It should have followed up with the resident and considered closing the ASB case in accordance with its policy.
On 1 April, 15 July, and 20 December 2021 the landlord asked the resident to complete record logs of the noise from her neighbour. On the same dates, it also asked her to raise noise from her neighbour to the LA’s noise pollution team and provided her with the contact details It said the LA could consider installing NME to monitor if the noise was a statutory noise nuisance. The resident’s response was as follows:
1. On 2 April, the resident refused to complete incident logs stating she “did not have time to do admin at 2 am every night.” Both the landlord and the LA provided the resident with the logs to complete. It told her on 20 December she had only provided evidence to it on 1, 3 and 4 October. This was inaccurate as she had also provided evidence on 31 March. There is no evidence through the whole period of the complaint that the resident completed record logs.
2. The resident had reported noise to the LA in June and October 2021. The LA confirmed to the landlord on 1 October it believed the case was “normal living noise”. It said its usual action would be to visit the resident and or install NME. It said it was unable to take these steps due to the restrictions in place at the time for COVID-19. It is acknowledged that NME is required to determine a statutory noise nuisance. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord considered an alternative approach to NME given that this was unavailable at the time. This affected its ability to conclusively investigate the resident’s reports and take any applicable “formal action.” It told the resident it was awaiting the LA’s decision in installing NME. There is no evidence it had requested this following its discussion with the LA in October. This meant its response was inaccurate and inhibited it from taking any further action.
The landlord spoke to the LA on 27 July 2022, and it confirmed the resident had made no reports to it in 2022. As a result on the same day, it told the resident it was considering closing the ASB case. Its consideration to close the case was fair as it had previously told the resident if it had insufficient evidence, it would consider doing this. Its policy also states it cannot keep ASB cases open “indefinitely.” The landlord closed the ASB case on 27 July, but it did not follow its policy in this regard. It should have given the resident 1 week in which to provide further information. Its snap decision meant the resident had insufficient time to challenge its action. It did offer mediation again to the resident in accordance with its policy, but she refused its offer.
On 27 July 2022, the resident reported noise from children and a washing machine at 1:30 am. There is no evidence the landlord spoke with the neighbour about these fresh concerns. This was not in accordance with its policy. On 18 August, the landlord requested the LA install NME at the resident’s property. This was an appropriate step in accordance with the resident’s report. However, as it had closed the ASB case on 27 July it created uncertainty for the resident on the position of her case and how it was formally handling it.
The landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about the energy costs of NME installed in her property. It told her on 12 September 2021 it would cover any increase in electricity costs. The resident reported the same day the noise was getting worse from her neighbour. The landlord asked her to complete record logs but there is no evidence she did. It chased the NME with the LA but there was a delay in installing it, an issue that sat outside of the landlord’s remit. The resident told the landlord on 12 October she had recordings of further noise nuisance from her neighbour. There is no evidence the landlord requested this from her or intended to listen to the recordings. This left the resident feeling it was not taking her seriously. It did chase the NME with the LA on the same day though.
The landlord’s stage 1 response provided little information to address the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. It ambiguously stated it had spoken to the neighbour. It said it had reminded them of their responsibility under their tenancy agreement. It failed to specifically address the resident’s previous reports or further concerns about noise from children and a washing machine running late at night. It said it would wait for the report of the NME analysis from the LA. It may have been more appropriate for the LA to wait for this outcome before providing its complaint response. This would ensure it could provide a comprehensive response to all points. Its Complaint Policy allows the extension of complaints for this reason.
The LA installed the NME on 2 November 2022 and collected it on 9 November. It completed its analysis on 2 December finding no statutory noise nuisance. It found issues were related to soundproofing in the building which are assessed later in this report. It is uncertain if the LA provided the resident with its findings. However, the landlord took the appropriate step of informing the resident of the findings on 21 December.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 January 2023, it said its stage 1 complaint response had only focused on the noise issue in the building. Its policy states it can consider making “minor adjustments” in properties to support resolving noise complaints. This includes adjusting doors or installing carpet. There is no evidence throughout the complaint the landlord attended at the resident’s or neighbour’s property to see if it could make any “minor adjustments.” The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised this failing and committed to attend both properties in 28 days to determine this. It is uncertain if the landlord completed this as on 28 March the resident told the landlord this had still not taken place. An order will be made for the landlord to ensure this is completed if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints states “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolution.” The resident reported experiencing noise transference, in sporadic periods, day and night over at least a 12-month period. This impact would have affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of their home and led to distress and inconvenience. It will be recommended for the landlord to self-assess against the spotlight report.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would visit the resident and neighbour in 28 days to discuss the noise issues and produce an action plan. It is uncertain if it took this step as the resident said on 28 March 2023 it had failed to do so. This suggested to the resident its commitment to resolving the issue was not serious. On 17 April 2023, it told the resident it would continue to “monitor the situation” but there was “nothing substantial to take further action”. Its approach was consistent with its previous advice that the resident needed to keep evidence and raise her reports to the LA. However, there is no evidence it had supported the resolution of the issues amicably between the two parties as it had suggested it would in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered compensation of £250. It said this was for failing to adhere to its ASB Policy in failing to complete an action plan or risk assessment or speak with the neighbour promptly. The Ombudsman finds the compensation award not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The landlord failed to acknowledge and consider compensation for the following further issues:
1. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports on 10 April 2021 and 12 October 2022. It failed to speak with the neighbour following the resident’s report on 27 July 2022.
2. It failed to explain the LA’s stance on investigating noise from children. It did not consider a different approach when the LA said NME was not available due to COVID-19 restrictions. It also failed to follow up on the resident reporting alleged drug use from her neighbour to the police or supporting her with this.
3. It failed to communicate with the resident about the ASB case at all between December 2021 and July 2022. It did not give the resident sufficient notice before taking steps to close the ASB case.
In summary there was evidence the landlord was making attempts to resolve the noise complaint between the resident and her neighbour. From 1 April 2021, it reported the resident’s concerns as ASB but failed to apply its ASB Policy. It failed to keep the resident consistently informed about what action it was taking or keep her updated. It failed to apply the action it had stated it would in its complaint response. It did not demonstrate it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and did not respond or take action on all the reports she made to it. The whole period caused uncertainty and distress to resident on whether the landlord was listening or would act.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. Compensation of £500 will be awarded to the resident as the landlord’s offer of £250 is not considered sufficient to reflect the overall detriment to the resident that resulted in the landlord’s failures. The amount detailed here includes the £250 already awarded by the landlord and reflects both the landlord’s acknowledged failures and those additional failures identified in this investigation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure with moderate impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference and associated repairs to the building.

The landlord’s Assets Referral Procedure confirms Local Officers are responsible for referring properties for “action in year” when failures are identified and, or if a surveyor has provided advice. It’s Communal and External Programme obligates it to deliver works to the building structure and communal areas. Where the work is “complex” it will refer the work to its Assets team for management.
The landlord’s Communal and External Enveloping Procedure confirms such works may need to be addressed “individually and in a reactive manner” as part of the day-to-day repairs programme. Where possible it will deliver such works as part of its planned maintenance programme. In delivering the planned programme it will complete a ground level survey and its local officer will provide additional information to support the works. The landlord’s contractor must provide their proposals within 2 weeks of the survey. The contractor cannot commence work until approved by the landlord.
As previously stated, the resident was reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour from 31 March to 4 October 2021. On 30 September, the LA told the landlord it believed the noise was “normal living noise”. The LA advised this was usually down to “poor insulation.” The landlord asked the LA for “other advice” on 30 September and the LA repeated it was “normal living noise”. It said it could take no action under the Environmental Protection Act and the restrictions on it due to Covid-19. There is no evidence at this point that the landlord investigated any insulation issues at the resident or neighbour’s property. This prompt from the LA could have enabled it to consider the issue with the flooring (which it would later acknowledge) at an earlier point. Its failure to do this at the earliest possible opportunity meant the issue continued unresolved for the resident for a longer period, causing frustration, distress, and inconvenience to her.
The landlord would later admit in its stage 2 complaint response of 5 January 2023 that it had visited the resident in October 2021, and she had raised concerns about “squeaky floors”. It acknowledged that it had failed to consider or resolve issues to “minimise noise transference.” This was accurate and it could have investigated making changes at either property such as flooring coverings. Again, the prompt from the LA about the property “insulation” at the time should have been sufficient for it to realise this.
On 27 July 2022, the resident told the landlord she believed “noise was transferring from surrounding flats.” It took no action to investigate this at this point and instead continued with its ASB and noise nuisance process by asking the resident to complete a log. This did not fully address the resident’s concerns and it did not reply to her regarding this at this time. This caused uncertainty to the resident on whether the landlord was listening to her.
In her complaint of 13 October 2022, the resident raised her concerns about noise “torment” which included “banging and music pollution”. In its stage 1 complaint response of 14 November, the landlord recognised “deflection inherent with the construction type of the building”. It is unclear when it became aware of this issue or whether it had taken action prior to its stage 1 response. It had confirmed it had taken positive steps to investigate the issue including a structural engineer looking into the issue. Its approach was reasonable responsible, and it outlined to the resident what options it could take, which it said would “be in the best interests of the resident.” It agreed to put an action plan in place and share this with the resident. It managed the resident’s expectations by stating it was “an ongoing issue” and there would “not be a quick fix.”
Regarding the resident’s concerns about noise the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response it would look at “both short and long-term measures.” Although this was an attempt at managing the resident’s expectations, it had not considered and would not go on to consider “short-term measures” for the resident. As previously mentioned, it had the opportunity to consider investigating adjustments or recommendations at residents’ or neighbours’ properties but did not do this.
The landlord would appropriately recognise this limitation of its stage 1 response in its stage 2 response of 5 January 2023. It stated its stage 1 response had not looked at the complaint on the resident’s “individual basis”. This demonstrated appropriate awareness of its failures. It reiterated its commitment to “keeping in touch with the resident.” It agreed to visit her within 28 days to consider what “day-to-day repairs” it could complete. This managed the resident’s expectations and showed it was taking the situation and resolution seriously from this point. Following this, there is no evidence the landlord visited the resident to complete this. She raised her concerns about this on 28 March 2023. An order was raised in the previous complaint definition regarding this.
The landlord completed a survey in December 2022 regarding the noise deflection in the building. It recommended improvement of fixing to the current floating floor. It confirmed it should complete tests to the communal second-floor lobby to establish if it would “reduce noise within acceptable levels.” This was an appropriate step following the landlord’s commitment to progressing resolution of the issue in its stage 1 response. It completed the survey a month before its stage 2 complaint response. Its stage 2 response did appropriately explain the outcome of the survey to the resident.
On 26 January 2023, the landlord would go on to explain to the resident the further “exploratory work” it would be taking, but could not give a timescale. It completed this in a reasonable timeframe, 3 weeks after its stage 2 complaint response. It would go on to complete the “exploratory work” in August 2023 in the communal hallway finding a reduction in noise transference. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 4 April 2024 it was delayed in completing the work due to finding a suitable contractor and the bespoke nature of the work. Although the Ombudsman recognises the complexity in completing the works, the time taken was unreasonable. From the surveyor recommending the “exploratory works” in December 2022, it took 8 months to complete the respective works. This caused further concern to the resident that the landlord was not taking the situation seriously and was not striving for a resolution.
Following this the Ombudsman recognises the difficulty the landlord has had in completing further works in the properties in the building. It advised the Ombudsman on 4 April 2024 following the “exploratory work” the contractor went into administration and it was forced to find a new contractor. The contractor was in place and completed a further assessment by 18 January 2024. The Ombudsman can find evidence of the contractor planning the completion of the work at this point, but it is uncertain if this has been completed.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £700, which it said it made “in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines.” The level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would consider reasonable for the acknowledged failures in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The failure by the landlord caused the resident moderate detriment to the resident over a prolonged period.
In summary the landlord failed to investigate the issue of noise transference from the earliest possible opportunity despite being prompted by the LA. Despite further reports from the resident, it failed to take any further action to the works to the floor. It also did not consider any minor repairs or recommendations in any of the building’s properties, which could potentially have relieved some of the detriment to the resident. The landlord did start to take appropriate action around its stage 1 complaint response regarding the works to the building. However, it failed to consider or acknowledge the cause of noise transference in the individual properties. It would however go on to provide an appropriate response at stage 2 confirming its management of the situation and offering appropriate compensation. For these reasons, a finding of reasonable redress has been determined.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour subletting their property.

The landlord’s Lodgers, Subtenants and Caretakers Policy confirms secure and assured tenants have the right to sublet part of their property but must first obtain consent from the landlord. If a tenant sublets their property whilst failing to use the property as its main or principle home, the landlord will follow its policy and procedure for dealing with tenancy fraud.
The landlord’s Tenancy Fraud Procedure confirms when it receives a report of tenancy fraud it will investigate whether: the resident is subletting the property and living elsewhere, or without permission is subletting part of the property or has taken in a lodger. It will decide whether it will involve a third party in its investigation such as the LA or National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN), who may lead an investigation. Its Tenancy Fraud and Unauthorised Occupants Policy confirms to investigate it can carry out unannounced visits, cross-check occupant details and use third-party data to gather evidence against tenancy fraud.
The first evidence of the resident reporting her neighbour was subletting their property was on 10 April 2021. The landlord did not respond to the resident on this point until 15 July. It simply told her it was “investigating and managing” subletting separately. It could have managed the resident’s expectations better by explaining it could not provide details about its investigation due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). This caused ambiguity to the resident and with its delay in responding caused the resident to believe it was not taking her concerns seriously or taking affirmative action to investigate. It is unclear what the landlord was doing to investigate the issue from this point. It told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response it meant to speak to the neighbour in summer 2021 but did not do this until October 2021. This and the lack of evidence otherwise suggest it took no action to investigate the subletting report between April and October 2021. This was despite the resident raising the issue again on 15 July.
Despite the landlord later confirming it spoke to the neighbour about subletting in October 2021 it did not update the resident until 20 December. It provided an update stating it found no evidence of subletting but had taken the appropriate step of referring the case to the LA. This action was in accordance with its policy. The landlord should have informed the resident of this much sooner to ensure it managed her expectations and it was transparent about the action it was taking at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is unclear if the resident or LA was investigating the report of subletting from 20 December 2021 onwards. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. There is also no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the position of its investigation with the LA. This caused the resident to believe it was not taking any action on the matter, causing uncertainty and distress to her. She raised the issue with the landlord again on 12 September 2022 and asked the landlord to view CCTV to prove her allegations. It told her it had turned off CCTV in July 2022 to investigate its “cost and power consumption.” It failed to respond to the resident about using CCTV beyond this. It could have explained why it was unable to use CCTV evidence before July 2022. There is no evidence it managed the resident’s expectations about whether the CCTV would be switched on again and if it would use any respective evidence. The resident raised the use of CCTV in her complaint escalation of 14 November 2022. The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage 2 response.
The resident would raise again that her neighbour was subletting their property in her complaint on 13 October 2022. Its stage 1 response said there was no evidence the neighbour was subletting the property, but it was investigating. There is no evidence of this at this point. It only seemed to start taking action after its reply:
1. On 30 November 2022 it provided information to the LA to support the LA’s investigation.
2. On 12 December 2022 and 9 January 2023, its internal records show it carried out further investigation, the details of which have not been included here for data security reasons. The steps outlined however present as reasonable actions to have taken in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said in October 2021 it could not “substantiate allegations” and “took no further action”. This contradicts the landlord’s response in October 2021 where it said it had referred the case to the LA. This reaffirms it had failed to raise the issue with the LA between October 2021 and November 2022. The stage 2 response failed to address its lack of action or communication from December 2021 onwards.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would speak to the neighbour about subletting within 28 days but there is no evidence it took these steps. There is no evidence it did this until 4 April 2023. It also received advice from the LA on 5 April 2023. The Ombudsman has seen a robust investigation carried out by the LA and landlord. The landlord provided an appropriate explanation of this on 17 April 2023. It explained it had completed an” in-depth investigation” and could find no evidence of subletting. It said it would continue to monitor the situation.
In summary the landlord failed to sufficiently communicate with the resident between 10 April and 19 December 2021 to explain it was taking the matter seriously, it was investigating but it could not share the details of its investigation. This caused uncertainty and distress to the resident. From October 2021 it was unclear if it took any further action to refer the case to the LA as it had suggested. It failed to communicate with her from this point causing her distress and inconvenience. It only started to act 12 months later because of the resident’s complaint on 13 October 2022. It was further delayed in taking action between its stage 2 response in January 2023 until April 2023. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about using CCTV.
As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her neighbour was subletting their property. Compensation of £200 has been awarded in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. There was failure by the landlord which it failed to fully acknowledge in its complaint responses. However, the impact to the resident was minimal.

Determination

56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.

57. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference and associated repairs to the building.

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour subletting their property.

Orders

59. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:

1. A senior staff member from the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour subletting their property.
  3. The amounts above include the £250 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint’s procedure for the above issues.
3. If it has not already done so the landlord will complete a further inspection of the resident’s and other neighbouring properties to determine if it can make any adjustments or recommendations to limit the impact of any further noise transference between properties. It must share the outcome of this investigation with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. It must confirm the anticipated timescale of any respective works to the Ombudsman and resident within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

60. The landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Noise Complaints.’ It should consider the recommendations provided within the report.