Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202315953)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat. He lives with his wife and his mother. He complained to the landlord about noise from a neighbouring property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour.
   2. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour

4. The landlord acted to support the resident by offering him a discretionary managed transfer. However, it did not monitor the noise or act in line with its policy to inspect the neighbour’s property. It did not consider measures that could be put in place to reduce the noise. It also failed to appropriately consider vulnerabilities reported by the resident and complete risk assessments in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord deals with noise under its ASB policy. It says that noise nuisance will be categorised as Grade 3. This requires a risk assessment within 1 working day and an action plan agreed with the reporter within 5 working days of the report. The policy states that noise from everyday living can cause disruption, for example due to the type of flooring. It says that the landlord will inspect the property and seek an alternative resolution, for example relaying floors with sound insulation.
7. The landlord’s policy categorises domestic noise such as footsteps or children playing during reasonable hours as Grade 4. It says these cases should be risk assessed within 1 working day and an action plan agreed if appropriate, with information and advice given, within 7 working days of the report. The policy states the landlord is not able to act formally in Grade 4 cases but will offer advice and referrals appropriate in the circumstances. It also may offer mediation if there is a lack of communication between neighbours. The landlord’s policy also says that a risk assessment should be carried out during the initial report and repeated at regular intervals as and when incidents occur or escalate.
8. The resident made reports of noise from his neighbour over a number of years. In December 2022, following reports of noise from the resident, the landlord conducted a risk assessment. It also spoke with the neighbour, who denied the allegations of excessive noise. The record of the landlord’s call with the neighbour indicates that mediation was offered and the neighbour was open to this. There is no record of mediation being offered to the resident, however, in correspondence to us the landlord said both parties declined.
9. There are no further records of the resident reporting noise from his neighbour until 10 July 2024, when he made a report complaining about the number of people in the property and the noise of children running around. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident for 16 July 2024 to discuss this, along with other issues. The resident did not attend this meeting. He sent a further email on 3 September 2024 raising issues of domestic noise and children playing at unsociable hours, including late at night and early in the morning.
10. The resident then complained to the landlord on 11 December 2024. In his complaint, the resident reiterated the issues raised in his previous reports. He said the circumstances were affecting his family’s mental health and the situation was the landlord’s fault due to the overcrowding of the property. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident made several additional reports in February and March 2025. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2025.
11. The landlord did take some action to support the resident. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses it reiterated a discretionary offer, which it had previously made in another stage 2 response in June 2023, to the resident for a managed transfer to a different property for his household. This was a reasonable approach to the issue. It took into account the resident’s reports of noise from his neighbours and the likely impact caused to him by remaining in the property. The landlord was also proactive in assisting the resident with making the necessary application, meeting with him on 10 January 2025 to assist him with documents, and coordinating with other services to facilitate the transfer. 
12. The landlord did respond to the resident’s concerns and took some action to offer a solution. However, it appears to have focussed on the issue of overcrowding of the neighbour’s property in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise. It said transferring the resident and his family was the only practical way of resolving the situation. It did not consider other relevant factors and possible actions it could take to help the situation while both parties remained neighbours.
13. It is unclear from available records how the landlord categorised the resident’s noise reports. Regardless of what category was applied, a risk assessment should have been completed. The landlord’s ASB policy states that a risk assessment should be carried out during the initial report and repeated at regular intervals when incidents occur or escalate. The only record of risk assessments that have been provided by the landlord are from December 2022 and January 2023. This failure to conduct regular risk assessments following the resident’s reports was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
14. Furthermore, in his reports of noise, the resident regularly noted the impact the noise was having on his household. In his email of 3 September 2024 he said his wife suffered from severe anxiety. In his complaint of 11 December 2024 he said he and his wife were suffering from depression. There is no record of the landlord considering this in its responses.
15. The landlord acknowledged in its correspondence to us that it did not provide a noise monitoring device to the resident at any stage. This meant it had no objective measurement of the noise levels in the resident’s property, which may have better informed what action was appropriate in line with its ASB policy. It also did not ask the resident to keep a log of the incidents, and so the only record of how often the resident was experiencing this was the resident’s reports and complaints.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord considered actions that it could take to try and reduce the noise. The landlord’s policy states that in cases where everyday living is causing noise and disruption, it will inspect the property to identify solutions. By not conducting an inspection of the property the landlord failed to identify any options that would have been available. For example, if the landlord had inspected the property, it may have identified solutions to reduce noise from kitchen appliances and activities such as dishwashing, which the resident regularly reported.
17. We consider the landlord’s failures to be service failure. In recognition of its failures and the impact on the resident, it must pay the resident compensation of £100. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure. The landlord must confirm with the resident if there are ongoing noise issues. It must confirm its position to the resident and consider what actions it could take to address the issue in line with its policy.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy says stage 1 complaints should receive a response no later than 10 working days from the date the complaint was received. Stage 2 complaints should receive a response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
19. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 9 working days and its stage 2 response within 15 working days. These were both provided in line with the timescales in the complaints policy.
20. The resident emailed the complaints team on 3 September 2024 about noise from his neighbour. The complaints team responded and advised that, given the fact it was not a service failure complaint about the landlord, it had passed it to the Neighbourhood Team to deal with. This was a reasonable response and an appropriate way to handle this email.
21. The landlord initiated the complaints process in response to the resident’s email of 11 December 2024. Internal emails show that it decided to treat this as a complaint as it felt issuing a formal response would allow it to address the issues the resident was raising in his reports of ASB. This demonstrated a proactive approach by the landlord in seeking to address the concerns raised by the resident.
22. The landlord also demonstrated good complaints handling in its handling of the resident’s stage 2 escalation. Although the period for raising an escalation had passed, the landlord dealt with the resident’s email of 16 April 2025 as a stage 2 escalation, rather than as a new stage 1 complaint. This was an appropriate and proportionate response as the complaint issues were the same as those addressed in the stage 1 response. This also gave the landlord an opportunity to provide a stage 2 response and progress the resident through its complaint process.
23. The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaints appropriately and responded in line with its complaint policy. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s record keeping around the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of noise was poor. For example, the landlord’s complaints team responded to the resident on 4 September 2024 saying it would raise a case with the neighbourhood team. However, there are no further records available in relation to this and no evidence of a case being raised.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided an appendix which included a chronology of the various issues and complaints raised by the resident. However, it did not include what actions the landlord had taken in response.
26. We encourage the landlord to keep accurate records of resident’s reports and complaints and how it has responded to these. Accurate records can help a landlord to identify if there are any issues at an early stage and can be relied upon if a dispute arises. They can also help the landlord demonstrate it has responded appropriately.

Communication

27. The evidence available to us shows that the resident repeatedly raised the same issues with the landlord and asked the landlord to take action. Relevant risk assessments, action plans, and updates would have helped to reassure the resident that it was taking his reports seriously and acting in line with its obligations. We encourage the landlord to ensure it communicates effectively with residents to reassure them the issues raised are being responded to appropriately.