Watford Community Housing Trust (202538720)

Background

1. The resident lives in a sheltered bedsit. The bedsit is above a communal laundry room. He reported a significant level of noise from the laundry room and from a communal front door banging when it closes. He also advised that anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour impacted his health.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Reports of noise transfer from the laundry room and communal front door.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
   2. Reports of noise transfer from the laundry room and communal front door.
   3. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by a neighbour

4. The landlord has taken action in relation to the reports of ASB from a neighbour, including working with the police. This appears to have resolved the matter. However, the resident described that there was distress at the time the ASB was ongoing. The landlord has not evidenced that it provided sufficient updates to the resident in how it was tackling the ASB. It did not do a risk assessment. We also note that it did not respond to a report of ASB on 1 September 2025. The landlord has not demonstrated it followed its ASB policy.

Reports of noise transfer from the laundry room and communal front door

5. The landlord undertook some actions to tackle noise transfer, including installing insulation. It also provided advice and support if the resident wanted to move home. However, it has not evidenced that it completed all repairs it promised in its complaint responses. It did not address the resident’s concerns that he could not use the noise app or suggest alternatives. It did not keep him informed regarding repairs. It also did not complete a risk assessment. This was not in line with its policies.

Complaint handling

6. Once the landlord recognised the complaint, it responded in a reasonable timeframe. However, it missed 2 earlier opportunities to identify an expression of dissatisfaction and log a complaint as per its complaints policy. This led to the resident needing to approach a third party for support to get his complaint raised. The landlord did not follow 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.

     What we did not consider

7. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and noise had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
8. Both the resident and the landlord stated there were ASB reports relating to a neighbour. We have not seen specific information regarding the nature of the ASB. As such, we have had to assess the landlord’s approach to reports of ASB more generally and have been unable to consider if it took actions to tackle the specific type of ASB that was allegedly occurring.

     What we did consider

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will record all actions it takes relating to ASB on its case management system. We have seen limited evidence of records relating to the ASB case against the neighbour. The records we have seen are part of communications or complaint responses and do not appear to be on a case management system. We note that without robust records, the landlord may not be able to track what actions it has taken or support it has given to the resident to manage ASB.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will keep residents informed of the ASB case. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it had provided informal updates to the resident. It apologised that there had been no formal update. The landlord’s policy does not say what form an update needs to be in. As such, the informal updates may have been in line with its policy. However, we have not seen records of these informal updates. Whilst its informal updates may have been in line with its policy, we are unable to assess how frequent they were or whether the information was sufficient in keeping the resident informed.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take a risk-based approach. On 24 June 2025 Citizens Advice told the landlord that they had concerns for the resident. This was due to a perpetrator of ASB remaining within his building. They said that the resident felt distressed and had to contact the police on a regular basis. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to establish if there was any concern of risk. We have not seen evidence it did this.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had worked with the police to resolve the matter. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work with the police to tackle ASB. It said it had removed a person from a property and that the police would be notified immediately if that person returned. It said the resident had not reported any new incidents of ASB. The landlord has demonstrated it followed its ASB policy in working with the police.
13. On 1 September 2025 the resident said that the police had attended a neighbouring property, and this had caused him distress. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to residents within 5 working days. We have not seen that the landlord responded to the resident in line with its ASB policy.
14. In the November 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord noted that there had been no recent ASB reports. It said it would continue to work with police to minimise reports of ASB at the resident’s building. It is positive that the landlord committed to continued working with the police. However, we note the landlord’s response did not acknowledge the resident’s report of an incident on 1 September 2025.
15. Whilst the landlord advised that it would continue to work with the police, it also stated that there had been no recent reports of ASB, describing the previous reports as “historical”. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to an ASB procedure for details on the process for closing an ASB case. If there was no ongoing ASB, it may have been appropriate to close the case. We have not seen its ASB procedure. As such, we are unable to determine what actions the landlord should have taken after deciding there was no ongoing ASB. As the stage 2 response refers to continued action, the resident may have expected ongoing updates. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm whether the case was still open and, if so, what the resident could expect moving forward. It did not do so.
16. The information indicates that the landlord has resolved the ASB concerns. The complaint bought to us by the resident also suggests the matter is historical. The landlord worked with the police to resolve matters in line with its ASB policy. However, we note that it did not assess if there was risk to the resident. It also did not respond to a report of ASB on 1 September 2025. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident as he had already complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB. We have also identified that the landlord was unclear as to whether it was monitoring the ASB case and what, if any, updates the resident should expect. Whilst the ASB matters are apparently not ongoing, we consider that the landlord’s failings likely contributed to the resident’s distress and uncertainty. As such, there was maladministration.
17. We have ordered the landlord to provide a current update on the ASB case, in writing, to both us and the resident. It should include what the next steps are relating to this case. We have ordered £150 compensation in line with our remedies guidance. This recognises that the landlord took some appropriate steps to handle the ASB allegations, but it was insufficient in providing reassurance to the resident.

18. The landlord has both an ASB policy and a good neighbourhood management policy. It states it will advise the resident which policy it is handling noise complaints under. There is no evidence the landlord advised the resident which policy it was handling his complaint about noise transfer under. We note that the landlord’s complaint responses referred to ‘ASB and noise complaints’ at the same time. This may have caused confusion as to whether the landlord was considering the noise complaint as ASB or not.
19. Both the good neighbourhood management procedure and the ASB policy say that residents should use the noise app to gather evidence of noise nuisance. On 24 June 2025 Citizens Advice made the landlord aware that the resident was digitally excluded and could not use the noise app. The landlord has a vulnerable customer policy which says it aims to ensure all residents have equal access to its services. In its response to the Citizen’s Advice, dated 27 June 2025, the landlord did not address the concern that the resident could not use the noise app. It did not make alternative suggestions such as other noise monitoring equipment. This was not in line with its vulnerable customer policy. In this instance, there was a negative impact for the resident as he was unable to gather and submit evidence.
20. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) categorises noise as a hazard. It says it can be detrimental to health. The resident consistently made the landlord aware that the matter was affecting his health and wellbeing. The good neighbourhood management policy does not refer to risk. However, the landlord’s ASB policy states it will assess risk when managing ASB cases. In this instance, due to the potential hazard, and impact on the resident, we consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess risk. We have not seen evidence it did this.
21. The resident has expressed a will to move property within his block. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had shown the resident another property at a different location but that this was unsuitable. It advised that it kept 25% of its stock for internal transfers and the remaining 75% was for new housing applications. As such, it could not guarantee the resident would be allocated an empty property in the block. It said it would continue to offer support to the resident if he wished to move. It also asked Citizens Advice to support the resident to use its choice based letting system. The landlord has provided advice in line with its access to housing policy. Whilst we recognise the resident’s frustration, we consider the landlord has taken reasonable steps to support him to find new housing.
22. We have separately considered the landlord’s actions in handling the 2 sources of noise below.

Noise transfer from the laundry room

23. HHSRS states preventative measures to deal with noise may include installing insulation. On 12 February 2025 the landlord noted that it had put acoustic insulation in the resident’s bathroom. This was due to the bathroom being above the laundry room, and the resident having reported noise transference. This was a reasonable action in line with HHSRS recommendations.
24. On 19 June 2025 the resident told the landlord that the noise from the laundry room was causing his health to deteriorate. On 24 June 2025 Citizens Advice contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said that the noise from the laundry room continued to cause distress to the resident. The landlord responded on 27 June 2025. It said it had installed insulation to the resident’s bathroom, and to the laundry room. We have not seen evidence that the landlord had installed insulation to the laundry room at the time of its response.
25. In the landlord’s response, it noted that washing machines could only be used from 8.45am and the last wash was at 6.45pm. The landlord’s policies and ASB toolkit do not say what hours it considers noise to be anti-social. However, government guidance on noise says that noise is anti-social between 11pm and 7am. As such, the landlord has put reasonable restrictions on the times residents can use the washing machines.
26. Whilst the landlord advised the resident what actions it had taken to tackle noise, it would have been reasonable for it to address if there were any further actions it could take. This is because the resident said he was still experiencing distress due to noise transfer. We have not seen it did so. This is likely to have contributed to the resident raising a complaint.
27. The landlord also said it had blocked a hole in the bathroom. However, on the same day, the resident contacted the landlord as he was unhappy that it had not informed him there was an appointment on 27 June 2025 to fill the hole. This had resulted in no access being obtained. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep residents informed about repairs. It did not follow its policy. Further, its response to Citizens Advice is likely to have caused frustration as it contained incorrect information that the repair was complete. The landlord re-arranged the appointment with the resident for 7 July 2025.
28. The repairs records show that the landlord attended on 3 July 2025 to fill the hole. We note that there was no access to the property on that day. We have not seen evidence that the landlord informed the resident that the date had been brought forward. This was not in line with its repairs policy. As the resident had already complained about not being informed of appointments, this is likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to attend on 7 July 2025, the date previously agreed with the resident.
29. The landlord attended the property on 24 July 2025. This was 20 working days after it raised the appointment to fill the hole. Its repairs policy says it will attend repairs within 20 working days. The landlord attended within the timescales of its policy. However, it does not appear to have completed any repairs on this day. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims for a “first time fix” on repairs. Whilst this is not always possible, we note the landlord was aware prior to the visit that a hole needed fixing. It is unclear from the records why the landlord did not complete the repair.
30. The notes from the appointment on 24 July 2025 said that it needed to open boxing in both the living room and laundry room and fill these with acoustic insulation. It also said that the hole needed filling. The landlord raised an appointment for 8 August 2025. The notes from 8 August 2025 repair say that it fitted insulation in a toilet. There is no evidence it completed work to fill a hole, or that it did any work on the laundry room. Further, we have seen a picture attached to the repair note. A note above the toilet in this picture indicates that the repair was to the communal toilet in the property and not the resident’s bathroom. The landlord’s records do not clearly demonstrate that it has fulfilled the repairs it identified.
31. On 1 September 2025 the resident contacted the landlord as he was unhappy it had not completed the works. On 8 September 2025 Citizens Advice also said the landlord had not done the works. The landlord did not respond which was not in line with its repairs policy to keep the resident informed.
32. The landlord attended on 19 September 2025 in which it said it installed insulation to the resident’s bathroom. However, the repairs notes again do not mention the laundry room, or the hole in the resident’s bathroom.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 November 2025 said it had installed the maximum amount of insulation to tackle noise transfer from the laundry room. The landlord has demonstrated that it has installed insulation in some areas. However, it has not shown that it completed all the works promised at stage 1, including filling the hole and additional insulation in the laundry room. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to address each previous repair and confirm whether it had completed them. If the landlord felt the work was no longer needed, it should have explained this to the resident. In saying that the maximum installation had been installed, without addressing repairs it had previously identified, there is likely to have been frustration for the resident.
34. In addition to insulation, the landlord said it wanted to install acoustic matting under the washing machines to minimise the noise. We have first seen the landlord mentioned this to the resident in its stage 1 response, dated 30 July 2025. By the stage 2 response dated 5 November 2025, the mats were not installed. We have not seen evidence to support what actions the landlord took between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses to get the matting installed. We note that the time between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses was 70 working days. The landlord said at stage 2 that it expected to install the mats on 20 November 2025, and the delay was due to needing a specialist contractor to install the mats. Whilst this was likely to cause some delay, we consider the total time to install the mats excessive when compared to the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. We have seen insufficient evidence to support that the landlord took action to get the mats installed as soon as possible. We have not seen evidence that confirms the landlord has now installed the mats.

Noise transfer from the communal doors

35. On 19 June 2025 the resident reported that banging from communal doors was causing him distress and affecting his mental health. This was reiterated by Citizens Advice on 24 June 2025. The landlord responded on 27 June 2025. It said it had sent 4 carpenters to try and resolve an issue with the communal doors. We have not seen evidence of these appointments. However, we note the landlord said the appointments had not resolved the matter. Its repairs policy states that it will advise the resident when follow on works are needed. Whilst the landlord had said in its response that it tried to resolve the matter, it did not give details of any further actions it would take. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
36. On 8 July 2025 the landlord noted that it needed to obtain quotes for a replacement door. This is likely to have been a reasonable action as previous repairs attempts were not successful. However, we cannot see that the landlord updated the resident of the further actions at that time. This was not in line with its repairs policy. Although the landlord appears to have been taking reasonable action to resolve the door repair, its failure to update the resident is likely to have caused frustration leading up to his 15 July 2025 complaint.
37. In the 30 July 2025 stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident it was sourcing a replacement door and it expected this to be delivered in 6 – 8 weeks. While this was not in line with the repairs for timescales as per its repairs policy, we consider the delay to be reasonable. This is due to the landlord having to rely on manufacturers.
38. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 and 15 September 2025 for an update on the door repairs. The landlord advised it was still waiting on the replacement door. Based on the timeframes the landlord gave for the door replacement, the door should have arrived by 23 September 2025. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had not received the replacement door at that time.
39. On 16 October 2025 the landlord told Citizens Advice that it was still chasing the replacement door. This was after the expected time for the door to be delivered and we have not seen an explanation for the delay. The landlord did not address the installation of a replacement door in the stage 2 response. However, it has informed us that the door was installed on 12 November 2025. We recognise that some delay was reasonable due to manufacturing and subsequent installation. However, there were several weeks where the landlord could have been more proactive in keeping the resident up to date with the door installation, particularly given his stated impact on his wellbeing.

Summary

40. The landlord took positive action to address the noise when it replaced the communal front door and installed insulation in rooms where noise transfer may be penetrating. It also offered the resident alternative properties in recognition that the location of his room was impacted by noise transfer. However, the landlord failed to evidence that it completed all identified repairs. It did not always keep the resident up to date with the actions it was taking, which likely led to frustration.
41. We also note that the landlord suggested the noise app to monitor noise. Whilst this was in line with its good neighbourhood management policy, the landlord has not provided the resident with alternative solutions on being aware he could not use the noise app. This is not in line with its vulnerable customer policy. Further, it was made aware that the matter was impacting on the resident’s health. Despite noise being a hazard, the landlord has not shown that it assessed if there was any risk. As such there was maladministration.
42. The landlord said it has taken all necessary actions to address the noise. However, the resident continues to experience distress due to noise transfer. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider if there are any further steps it can take to investigate the noise transfer. This may include a referral to environmental health or installing noise monitoring equipment. It may also be reasonable for the landlord to assess the building to ensure it meets the necessary requirements for sound proofing.
43. The landlord offered £50 at stage 2 to address the repair delays. We consider that due to the impact the matter had on the resident, the period this was outstanding and the extent of its failings, this amount does not align with our remedies guidance. We have awarded an additional £200. This is in recognition that the landlord took some actions to put things right, however it has not fully recognised the adverse detriment to the resident.

44. The landlord’s complaints policy says it considers a complaint to be an expression of dissatisfaction. This aligns with the definition in the Housing Ombudsman Code (The Code).
45. On 19 June 2025 the landlord said the resident was “very unhappy” and his “mental health was deteriorating”. On 3 July 2025 the landlord noted the resident was “really upset no one was listening to him”.  We would consider these to be expressions of dissatisfaction. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time. This is not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. We note that the landlord did not log a complaint until 15 July 2025, following communication from Citizens Advice. It was unreasonable that the resident had to contact a third party before the landlord logged his complaint.
46. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint in 1 working day. However, the Code says landlords have 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 2 working days. We consider this to be reasonable as it was in line with the Code.
47. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will aim to resolve the complaint on the same working day. If it cannot, it will resolve it in 10 working days of the acknowledgement. This complies with the Code. The landlord responded in 11 working days. Whilst this is not in line with its policy, we do not consider a delay of 1 day to have any significant impact on the resident.
48. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 7 October 2025. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. This complies with the Code. The landlord took 14 working days. This is not in line with its policy or the Code.
49. The landlord’s policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging them. This complies with the Code. The landlord responded in 7 working days. This complied with the Code. Whilst the landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in the appropriate timescale, we consider the overall detriment to be low. This is because the overall time to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was 21 working days.
50. The landlord’s delays were small and unlikely to have had a significant detrimental impact. However, there were 2 opportunities to recognise a complaint at an earlier date. As the landlord did not log a complaint, the resident felt he had to approach a third party for support. We consider this to be unreasonable and as such there was maladministration.
51. We have considered compensation based on the distress and inconvenience to the resident. We consider there was likely to be frustration in the landlord not recognising his complaint earlier. We have awarded £100 This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there has been distress and inconvenience but no permanent impact.

Learning

52. We made a second information request to obtain the landlord’s ASB policy. It provided this but did not provide its ASB procedure, which is referred to throughout the policy. We were unable to obtain this online. The policy refers to its procedure for more information regarding the specific actions it will take during an open ASB case. This also includes details of when and how a case will be closed. We note the procedure is likely to contain practical information that would help manage a resident’s expectations. The landlord may wish to consider ensuring that its procedure is readily available or updating its policy to include specific information regarding what resident’s can expect during an ASB case.
53. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it handles noise which is “deemed statutory” under its ASB policy. It says that it deals with household noise under its good neighbourhood management policy. We note that its definition of ASB relating to noise is vague and it may not be easy for a resident to determine what is ASB when it comes to noise complaints. The landlord has an online toolkit which gives further information on noise complaints. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure its policy can be easily understood by residents regarding what might and might not be ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. We have noted that there was limited information on the ASB case regarding the neighbour. We recognise from the internal emails that the ASB may have involved sensitive information relating to the neighbour, and that the landlord would not be able to share everything with the resident due to data protection. However, its record keeping relating to the updates to the resident were poor. This has led to unclarity in relation to what the landlord was doing to tackle the matter. This is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.

Communication

55. The landlord has a strong repairs policy that states it will keep residents informed. However, it has not evidenced that it was proactively updating the resident in regard to repairs. This led to him chasing the landlord and contacting a third party for support. This is also likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.