Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202333954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333954

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

09 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. She has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom flat, with her flat mate since July 2019. The resident has known vulnerabilities, including long term rheumatoid arthritis.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2021. She wrote that the floors in the main bedroom and living room in the flat upstairs creaked loudly when used by the neighbours. She said the noise was impossible to ignore in her flat. She said the neighbours would go to bed late and wake early, this pattern had led to a lack of sleep for her that had in turn negatively affected her health conditions. She reported that she had tried to resolve the issue by speaking with the neighbours in person and had sent them a letter. She said the late-night noise had continued despite this.
5. Discussions took place between the landlord and the resident throughout 2021 and 2022. On 26 September 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said:

a.     since she moved into the property she had reported noise issues from her upstairs neighbours in the evening. She said she could hear stomping, noises in the bathroom, kitchen and bedroom, creaking of floors, and late-night showering.

b.     the noise nuisance had kept her household awake at night for more than 2 years. She said she had a chronic health condition and poor sleep would worsen the effects of this.

c.      the landlord had not contacted the neighbours even though she had asked for this several times.

d.     the landlord was too focussed on changing the neighbour’s flooring, rather than speaking to them, because it found the neighbours difficult to talk to.

e.     she had been informed that her housing officer was away from work. She said she was raising a complaint to get the issue reviewed by a manager.

6. On 13 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint. It said:  

a.     in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in January 2021, the landlord had investigated and spoken to the neighbours.

b.     the neighbours disputed the claims of noise disturbance. They said they had lived there for over 30 years and had not received a complaint before.

c.      the landlord had tried to facilitate mediation, but the resident said this did not work.

d.     in December 2021, the landlord had instructed a surveyor to undertake an inspection of the upstairs flat. The outcome of the inspection was that the landlord removed all the laminate flooring from the flat upstairs, tightened loose floorboards and replaced the flooring with underlay and carpet to address the noise transference.

e.     the resident reported issues with the upstairs neighbours using their kitchen, bedroom and shower during the night. The landlord said it cannot monitor how another resident chooses to live in their home. This falls under household noise.

f.        the resident could contact the local authority’s noise nuisance team.

g.     the resident could request a meeting with a manager if she wanted discuss the issue further.

7. On 15 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:

a.     it had taken 3 years for the landlord to lay down carpet. This had stopped the creaking floorboards, but she could still hear her upstairs neighbours stomping, dropping things on the floor, moving furniture, opening cupboards and conversing. She wanted confirmation on what underlay was chosen.

b.     her neighbours used the shower after midnight most nights and then “stomp” around after 11pm which makes it impossible for her household to sleep. She said there are lots of unpredictable and loud bangs in the kitchen, and the glass doors of the shower clatter loudly.

c.      the building was old and the rooms were small. She said there were empty cavities between the walls which meant the sound proofing was poor. She said the landlord’s surveyor should be able to confirm this.

d.     she had contacted the local authority noise nuisance team who had referred her back to the landlord.

e.     the landlord had said the resident said she could not speak to her neighbour due to the language barrier, but this was not the reason. She had spoken to the neighbour in person on one occasion and had given them a translated letter on another occasion. Both attempts were unsuccessful.

f.        she acknowledged that the landlord could not monitor nightly activity. She said instead it could give the household a clear, gentle reminder of the impact of general noise after 11pm and give advice, for example, to not slam doors or to use slippers.

g.     she had been told her housing officer was on leave for an extended period. She had wasted a lot of time and effort trying to address these problems and it had affected her health and wellbeing.

8. In December 2022 the landlord undertook its own internal independent review of the complaint. On the back of this review, the landlord subsequently issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:

a.     whilst it was sympathetic to the noise issues raised by the resident, they fall under the definition of domestic noise rather than noise nuisance. The landlord attached a copy of its domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy. In practice, because of this, the landlord said it was not in a position to enforce any change of behaviour.

b.     a surveyor had attended on 2 occasions since December 2021. The findings were that the property was insulated, and the recommendations made were regarding minor repairs to the flooring and laying down a carpet with underlay. The landlord completed both recommendations.

c.      the underlay chosen was standard across properties and found to be successful for noise transference. The surveyor confirmed no differences in the construction of the resident’s flat and others on the estate with no reported noise issues. The landlord would not need to take any further action.

d.     the housing officer had taken several proactive steps to try to facilitate a solution. It was unfortunate that the resident felt this was unsuccessful.

e.     the information provided to the resident in respect of her housing officer being away was false. It was issued by a community centre employee who was not employed by the landlord. The housing officer responded to the resident at stage 1, which evidenced that she was at work.

f.        it acknowledged that the complaint response was overdue. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the service failure identified.

9. The resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of the complaint in December 2023. In conversation with the Ombudsman in April 2025 she said the noise had continued to negatively affect her household. She said this was particularly the case for her flat mate, who’s bedroom was directly under the neighbour’s bedroom that was not carpeted.
10. The resident said that there was talk of mediation but that this was put on hold. To resolve her complaint, she said she wanted:

a.     mediation with her upstairs neighbours led by the landlord.

b.     the neighbours to agree to be careful and quiet between the hours of 11pm and 2am.

c.      for the landlord to recognise the behaviour as anti-social and respond accordingly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said the issues have been ongoing since July 2019. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to July 2019. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will only consider events from January 2021 until the stage 2 complaint response, issued on 3 January 2023.
12. The resident said the issues in the property have negatively affected her health conditions. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
13. As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to her complaint.
14. The resident told this Service that she would like the landlord to consider the noise as an anti-social behaviour issue. We are unable to determine whether anti-social behaviour occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case. We can also assess whether any failures have resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.

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

15. The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy describes domestic noise as the experience of noise caused within a domestic residence caused by every day, daytime household activities. This includes but is not limited to noise from household appliances, talking, banging doors or television. It excludes instances where noise is too loud, which is considered noise nuisance and dealt with as anti-social behaviour (ASB).
16. The policy states that it recognises that domestic noise can impact a resident’s enjoyment of their home but that it respects the right of each resident to live without interference from the landlord. In response to reports of domestic noise, it will advise residents to politely discuss the issue directly with their neighbour. It says it will advise residents of tools available such as mediation, advice from housing management and offer support.
17. It says that if a resident believed the issue should be dealt with in line with the ASB policy, it will review the case, which may include contacting the other resident.
18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot assess whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its Equality Act duties.
19. The resident reported the noise issues to the landlord on 12 January 2021. On 14 January 2021 the landlord told the resident it had spoken with her neighbours who said the only movement in their flat at night would be the household members using the toilet and going back to their bedroom. The landlord asked the residents upstairs to inspect their flooring for creaking, it agreed to follow-up with the neighbour and to provide the complainant with noise log templates. It signposted the resident to the local authority’s noise nuisance team.
20. The landlord offered sympathy and advice to the resident, contacted her neighbour to investigate the reports and agreed to monitor the situation. This was in line with its domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise nuisance, published after this complaint, recommended that landlords have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. That the landlord already had a distinct policy for noise issues was positive.
21. On 21 January 2021, 7 working days after her service request, the landlord sent the resident noise log templates so she could keep a record of the reported disturbance. There are no timescales for landlord responses in the domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy. However, given the resident’s reported distress, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the noise log templates when it responded to the resident on the 14 January 2021.
22. On 26 January 2021 the resident raised the issue again as part of a joint complaint with another two neighbours. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this joint complaint, which was unreasonable.
23. On 1 February 2021 the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise nuisance found that maladministration was commonly found in cases where the landlord failed to produce action plans or undertake risk assessments. Risk assessments focus landlords on the harm caused and enable them to put measures in place at the first opportunity.
24. The landlord recorded a medium risk assessment score for the resident. The landlord’s risk assessment guidance states that, in response to a medium score, it should:

a.     agree an action plan with the complainant.

b.     discuss the case with a legal caseworker and manager.

c.      act promptly.

d.     consider security and safety measures.

e.     consider a referral to support agencies.

f.        keep the risk assessment under review.

25. It is encouraging that a risk assessment was undertaken. However, there was no evidence of any action plans, any further risk assessments, any discussions with legal caseworkers or considerations of referrals to support agencies within the landlord’s records. This was a failing when assessed against the landlord’s own risk assessment guidance.
26. Over the subsequent 8 months, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions to submit diary logs, describe the impact of the noise on her household and request a response. It would have been fair for the landlord to have made the resident aware if there was going to be a delay in addressing the issue. It failed to act promptly in response to the identified risk.
27. In November and December 2021, the landlord liaised with the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reported noise disturbance. It also visited both flats. It identified that the neighbour had put down laminate flooring without the landlord’s permission and this was likely contributing to the noise issues. That the landlord undertook the inspection was reasonable, but it could have put things right for the resident sooner had completed the inspection promptly in response to the noise reports earlier in the year.
28. A surveyor inspection was completed in February 2022. Between October and December 2022, the landlord completed the carpet and underlay works to the flat upstairs. It was reasonable that the landlord investigated the issue and made changes to reduce the noise transference in response to the resident’s reports.
29. The surveyor inspection was 12 months after the landlord categorised the risk to the resident as medium and 2 months after the laminate flooring was identified as an issue. This Service acknowledges that there could have been delays to the landlord’s actions due to the coronavirus pandemic. The government’s introduction of lockdown restrictions between November 2020 and December 2021 led to delays to repairs and required works for properties in England throughout 2021.
30. There were also substantial gaps throughout the complaint where the resident would not contact the landlord to report any issues. The resident told this Service that the noise disturbances varied depending on whether all members of the neighbour’s household were at home or not. These periods of non-reporting could also have contributed to the delay in the landlord’s responses.
31. Despite the above, it was not reasonable that it took the landlord between 20-22 months to inspect the above property and remedy the flooring. It was not acting promptly in line with its risk assessment guidance. The resident repeatedly reported the impact of the noise on her health. The landlord failed to consider its duty under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to discuss whether any reasonable adjustments might be necessary to speed up its response.
32. In September 2022, the resident raised her complaint. On 13 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had spoken to the upstairs neighbour, tried to facilitate mediation and made repairs to the flooring upstairs. This Service acknowledges that the landlord tried to put things right for the resident by liaising with the neighbours and undertaking some insulation works. This was a reasonable attempt at addressing the resident’s concerns.
33. In both complaint responses the landlord says that it facilitated mediation but that it was unsuccessful. The resident told this Service that the landlord had discussed mediation but that it had put it on hold indefinitely. There is no evidence of any mediation attempt within the landlord’s records. This was a record keeping failing by the landlord. Based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s communication with the resident about its offer of mediation was not clear, this was not reasonable. Its records should evidence when the mediation was offered and if and why it was refused or accepted by the resident and her neighbour.
34. The landlord’s position in its complaint responses was that that the resident’s complaints in respect of the neighbour’s movements fell under domestic noise. It confirmed to the resident that it was not be able to impose changes to the neighbour’s household movements such as what footwear they should wear or what time they could shower. The landlord signposted the resident to its own domestic noise policy and advised her of the local authority’s noise nuisance team. The landlord also outlined the actions it had already taken to address the noise reported. It addressed the resident’s complaint and was clear in its position with reference to its relevant policies. This was reasonable.
35. The landlord’s independent internal complaints reviewer found that the landlord had acted fairly in response to the resident. It found that the landlord could consider whether any other sound proofing works could be recommended. It acknowledged that the carpeting did not seem to have made enough of an impact for the resident to resolve the complaint. It recommended considering moving the resident to alternative accommodation, if possible, without neighbours above.
36. It is encouraging that the landlord used an independent review system to better practice fairness and learn from outcomes. It also shows that the landlord considered the impact on the resident and what alternative solutions could be explored. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have discussed these further proposals, such as more soundproofing or alternative accommodation options, with the resident as part of its stage 2 response.
37. To conclude, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour because:

a.     it unreasonably delayed in taking action to address the reported noise issues from the flat above.

b.     it failed to keep the resident updated on what it could or would do between February 2021 – December 2021.

c.      it did not adhere to its own risk assessment guidance after having identified a medium risk to the resident.

d.     there were record-keeping failures in respect of the resident’s joint complaint and the landlord’s offer of mediation.

e.     it failed to have due regard to its duties as outlined in the Equality Act 2010, in response to the resident’s reports of the impact of the noise on her disability.

f.        although it had expressed sympathy for the resident, it had not acknowledged its failings or attempted to put them right.

38. Although the landlord confirmed to the resident that it considered her reports of noise to fall under domestic noise, the failings identified in the report, including the delays in the landlord’s communications, caused the resident distress and inconvenience. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of the distress caused. We have also ordered the landlord to meet with the resident to clarify its position on its offer of mediation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

39. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
40. The resident raised a complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord’s records show that the resident then chased the landlord for a response on 12 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 October 2022, 13 working days after the complaint acknowledgement. Though the delay was minor, it was outside the timescales set in the complaints policy, which was a failing.
41. It took the landlord 32 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response after the stage 2 escalation. This was outside the timescales outlined in the complaints policy.
42. The response addressed all the resident’s complaint aspects, explained that the complaint had gone to an independent reviewer, acknowledged the delay in responding and offered the resident £50 in recognition of its service failure. This was proportionate compensation for its service failure in the circumstances. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour.
44. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

b.     pay the resident compensation of £350 in recognition of the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour.

c.      meet with the resident to clarify whether the offer of mediation with the upstairs neighbours is still available, explain what it would involve and confirm the resident’s position. It must write to the resident and this Service with a summary of the outcome of this meeting.

46. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

47. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £50 compensation for complaint handling as outlined in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not done so already.