Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202122048)

Decision
Case ID	202122048
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Red Kite Community Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident complained about noise transference from her upstairs neighbour. She is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns, particularly as the issue has been longstanding and remains unresolved.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour.
We found the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord unreasonably relied on historical, and potentially outdated, findings in its response to the resident’s reports of noise. It failed to investigate her reports in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy.
The landlord apologised for its complaint handling failure and offered proportionate compensation. It also identified and committed to giving feedback to its complaints team.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to her noise reports. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026
3	Investigation order The landlord must contact the resident to get evidence of the noise she reported. It must open a new ASB case and respond to any reports in line with its policy. The landlord must also re-offer a visit from its wellbeing and inclusion officer to assess what other support it can provide the resident. If the resident does not respond to its communication, the landlord must evidence that it has made reasonable efforts to comply with this order.	No later than 7 May 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the flooring between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s. This inspection must be carried out by a suitably qualified professional. The inspection should consider if the existing acoustic flooring is in good condition and whether any repairs are needed. The inspection should also consider if any other practical measures can be implemented to reduce noise transfer. A report from the inspection must be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 11 June 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should offer an assessment of the resident’s suitability for a priority move by an occupational therapist. If she is eligible, it should support her with the move. The landlord should also clarify to the resident her other options for rehousing.
The landlord should review its ASB policy to include guidance on how soon guidance on when it will and will not investigate new incidents relating to a longstanding or historical issue. This is to provide guidance to staff and manage residents’ expectations.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
July 2020	The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about noise from her upstairs neighbour. It concluded that the noise was ‘everyday living noise’, adding that the council’s environmental health team had found no statutory noise nuisance during investigations in 2012-2013. The soundproofing it had installed in 2014 was inspected the previous month and was found to be working as intended. had carried out soundproofing to the upstairs property in 2014. It had offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour, but the neighbour did not want to take part.
13 February 2024	The resident made a new complaint to the landlord about the noise from her upstairs neighbour. She said: The children’s noise was excessive and sometimes lasted until 1am. The noise affected her and her daughter’s health. She wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation to support her mental health.
1 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: The reported noise was reasonable everyday living noise. It would only investigate if the noise became unreasonable. The resident could have her suitability for a priority move assessed by an occupational therapist. If she was suitable it said it would support her with this. Its wellbeing and inclusion specialist could visit her to discuss her situation.
20 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord declined her request as it said she had not provided any new information.
1 July 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say that, after reviewing her closed complaint, it should not have denied her escalation request. It noted that she continued to be unhappy because it had not investigated the soundproofing between her and neighbour’s properties. The landlord also noted the resident was unhappy it had not considered the impact of the noise on her.
1 August 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It said: It had historically found no actionable breach of tenancy or statutory noise nuisance. It had investigated similar noise reports from 2012 – 2020 which had found the noise reported was ordinary living noise. It asked the resident to provide diary sheets and Noise app recordings to evidence her reports. It offered £75 compensation for incorrectly refusing to escalate her complaint to the final stage.
26 June 2024 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the noise from her neighbour continued and was affecting her and her household’s health due to lack of sleep. She wanted the landlord to assess the flooring between her and neighbour’s property to reduce the noise.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us that the noise from her upstairs neighbour has been an issue for over 9 years. We do not seek to dispute this. However, we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time. This is normally within 12 months of the issues happening, so that the landlord has the opportunity to consider the issues as a complaint while they are ‘live’. It is also so that evidence is readily available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The evidence that we have available shows there was an absence of reporting in the 12 months leading up to February 2023. For that reason, we have limited our investigation to assess the landlord’s actions between February 2023 and when it issued its final response to the complaint. We have included some historical information to add context to the investigation, but we have not based our decision on these historical events.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines a noise complaint as “a grievance about excessive, disturbing, or unreasonable noise coming from a neighbouring property”. The policy also says that reports of frequent excessive noise will be investigated as ASB. When the landlord receives a report of noise, the policy says it should contact the resident within 5 working days. However, the policy also says that it expects tenants to “respect other peoples’ right to their chosen lifestyle and everyday reasonable level of disturbance. Examples may include… children playing…. which we do not consider to be ASB”
The resident reported she was continuing to experience noise from her upstairs neighbour on 19 September 2023. She said this was excessive noise which was “heavier than usual day to day noise”. The resident highlighted that the upstairs property was now occupied by 3 children in addition to 2 adults. She said there was “horrific noise” from “running, jumping, thudding, stomping” sometimes lasting into the early hours of the morning. Given the landlord’s policy, it would have been appropriate for it to investigate the resident’s report. It failed to do so.
The resident reported that the noise sometimes continued into the early hours. A normal level of living noise may be considered ASB if it occurs at unsociable hours and the landlord should have investigated this. While it is acknowledged that the landlord had previously reached a decision about the incidents the resident had reported, it is unclear why it failed to investigate these new reports.
It is noted that within its responses, the landlord repeatedly referred to historical findings and complaint responses from before 2021. These said the resident’s previous reports of noise from her neighbour were not ASB as they were found to be ordinary living noise. These responses were inappropriate as the historical reports did not mean that the new reports were not incidents of excessive or unreasonable noise.
The landlord also said it had tested the acoustic flooring in 2020 and found this was in working order. Given that several years had passed since the inspection and the resident reported that the noise transference was worsening, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a new inspection of the flooring. It’s unclear why the landlord did not do so, but as a result it missed an opportunity to satisfy itself that the acoustic flooring was still in good condition. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not satisfy itself of whether flooring had deteriorated from normal wear and tear. The landlord’s lack of action was not in keeping with the spirit of our report: “Spotlight on: Noise complaints – Time to be heard”. This recommended that landlords should consider practical methods of reducing noise where possible.
The landlord said, in its final complaint response, that it would need evidence to support an investigation of noise. While it did not refuse to investigate the noise, it also did not commit to investigating the resident’s concerns. In line with its policy, it would have reasonable for it to open an ASB case, interview her, provide incident diary sheets, and give clear guidance on how to gather and provide noise recordings.
It was positive that the landlord offered to have the resident’s request for rehousing assessed by an occupational therapist. It was also positive that it offered a visit from its wellbeing and inclusion specialist to assess what other support it could provide. This demonstrates that the landlord gave some consideration to how it could improve the situation for the resident. We have recommended the landlord reoffer the option of an occupational health assessment to her.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s new reports of noise led to distress and inconvenience for her. The resident said the noise also affected her and her household’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused to mental or physical health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have decided whether the landlord should pay compensation for general distress and inconvenience.
We note that as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports, the resident sought intervention from local councillors to advocate for her as she felt it was not listening to her. This could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had acted in accordance with its policy and dealt with the resident’s reports fairly and appropriately.
In deciding on the level of compensation that the landlord should pay, we have considered our approach to redress as set out in our Remedies Guidance and also our Compensation Guidance. We have made a series of orders aimed at ensuring that the landlord deals with the resident’s latest and current concerns in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint mirrored our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This included complaint timescales, the definition of a complaint, and the requirement for escalating a complaint.
The Code says that if a resident is unhappy with a stage 1 response, the landlord should escalate the complaint. Under the Code, the resident does not need to explain their reasons for seeking escalation. The landlord declined the resident’s escalation request in March 2024. This was on the basis that the resident had not submitted any new information. This was inappropriate.
It was positive that the landlord proactively contacted the resident on 1 July 2024 to reopen her complaint. This demonstrated that it wanted to put right its failure. It was also positive that it acknowledged that it had not acted appropriately and apologised for this in its final stage complaint response. The landlord also demonstrated learning by confirming it would be giving guidance to its complaint handling staff about complaint escalations.

The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for its complaint handling failure. Given the evidence and that the impact of the landlord’s failure was short lived, we are satisfied that its offer was proportionate to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was adequate. It may wish to periodically review its record keeping practices to ensure records are comprehensive and accessible.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident overall was timely.