West Kent Housing Association (202338269)

Decision
Case ID	202338269
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	West Kent Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Other
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat within a communal block. The resident experienced Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) from a former neighbour who lived in the flat located directly above their property. This previous neighbour was evicted from the property in September 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reported noise nuisance.
3. The landlord’s handling of a request for it to conduct vetting for an incoming tenant.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported noise nuisances.
   2. The landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for its handling of a request for it to conduct vetting for an incoming tenant.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reported noise nuisances

6. The landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policies and procedures, and in a manner which was sensitive to the resident’s history as a victim of ASB.

 

The landlord’s handling of a request for it to conduct vetting for an incoming tenant

7. The landlord acknowledged its failings, and it offered the resident redress which was appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaints handling

8. The landlord provided its complaint responses in line with its policies.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the compensation previously offered of £300 if it has not yet done so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said: They had experienced significant ASB from their previous upstairs neighbour. The previous ASB had a significant impact on theirs and their partner’s welfare. Because of this the landlord said when it re-let the upstairs property it would be sensitively let, and the new tenant would undergo vetting. A new tenant had moved into the upstairs property. This tenant’s lifestyle was keeping the resident awake at night. The resident felt the new neighbour did not intend to cause a nuisance; instead, the disturbances were due to poor soundproofing between the two properties. The resident reported hearing banging, music, television noises and the shower from the upstairs property overnight. They felt the landlord had a responsibility to resolve the matter urgently.
15 December 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. In it, the landlord said: The resident had reported unsociable noises which included their upstairs neighbour showering and hoovering at night. They were concerned that this could impact their mental health due to their previous experiences with ASB. On 13 November 2023, it had spoken with the upstairs neighbour about the reported noise. It had also arranged sound testing between the two flats to check for building fabric issues. It had discussed the noise with the resident, who had agreed to keep a log of the reported noise nuisances. It was taking the issue seriously, and it had actioned the resident’s concerns. It had also made referrals for the resident due to the impact the noise was having on their welfare. Due to issues with the previous tenant, the resident asked the landlord to choose a new tenant for the upstairs property carefully. The landlord said it had followed its rigorous lettings process, which included obtaining references and assessing whether the new tenant had a history of ASB or criminality.
29 January 2024	The landlord met with the resident in person. During this meeting the resident expressed that they were dissatisfied with how the landlord had been handling the noise transference issues. Because of this the landlord decided to escalate the resident’s complaint.
4 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. In it, the landlord said: It was handling the ASB reports appropriately and in line with its policies. It had undertaken the appropriate checks when the neighbour moved into the property. It said that even though it had conducted such checks, this could not guarantee that ASB would not occur in the future. It had identified that when it advertised the neighbouring property, it had not listed it as a sensitive let. This was because it did not receive the correct documents in time. It apologised for this error and offered the resident £100 in compensation. It apologised for not identifying its error during stage one of the complaint, and it offered the resident compensation of £200 to reflect this failure.
18 March 2024	The resident brought their complaint to us as they felt the landlord had not fully investigated the matter.
September 2024	The upstairs neighbour moved out of the property via a managed move. After this the landlord advertised the property as a sensitive let.

 

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 reported noise nuisances.
Finding	No maladministration

9. The landlord’s community safety policy defines excessive noise, such as repeated loud music and shouting, as ASB. It does not consider everyday noise, or noise made without intent to cause annoyance or distress, to be ASB. The policy encourages residents to speak with each other first to resolve noise-related concerns. If the landlord investigates a noise issue, it asks residents to complete logs to help establish patterns, frequency, and volume.
10. The resident reported noise concerns to the landlord on 13 November 2023. On the same day, the landlord opened an ASB case and agreed to speak with the neighbour. The landlord considered the resident’s history as a victim of ASB, and it decided not to ask the resident to speak with the neighbour, as its policy would usually require. Instead, it decided to speak to the neighbour in an informal manner before it had obtained independent evidence of the reported noise. This approach was supportive and took the resident’s circumstances into account.
11. Following the resident’s reports the landlord conducted a risk assessment, and it made referrals to third party agencies which could support the resident. This was appropriate.
12. The landlord met with the resident’s neighbour on 17 November 2023 and said concerns about noise from their property had been raised. It also told the neighbour that the there had been issues with the tenant who previously lived in their property, and it asked them to be mindful of this. Notes from this meeting said the neighbour was not aware of any concerns around noise, and they committed to being more considerate. They also agreed to facilitate a sound test between the two properties.
13. The landlord acted promptly in speaking with the neighbour. Its actions in speaking to the neighbour on an informal basis was appropriate given that it had no independent evidence of the noise, and the neighbour had only recently moved in.
14. On 6 December 2023 the landlord arranged a sound test between the properties. This was a reasonable step. The test found no issues with the building fabric which might cause noise transference. However, the operative suggested that installing carpet in the neighbour’s property could help reduce noise.
15. Social housing landlords in England are only required to install flooring in kitchens and bathrooms. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for fitting carpet in the neighbour’s bedroom or living room. Despite this, the landlord explored funding options and installed carpets in the neighbour’s property on 13 March 2024. This showed a willingness to improve conditions for the resident.
16. After the resident submitted a complaint, they continued to report that their sleep was being disturbed by noise transference. In response, the landlord took the following actions:
    1. It met with both parties.
    2. Advised the neighbour on appropriate noise levels when using their television and playing music.
    3. Arranged a human sound test to assess noise levels from everyday activities.
    4. Offered mediation.
    5. It sent the neighbour warning letters which said they should not use household appliances between 11pm to 7am, and they should also use headphones during these hours.
    6. Both parties were offered managed moves.
17. In September 2024 the neighbour moved to a different property via a managed move. The resident has told us they now have a new neighbour, and the noise transference issues have improved.
18. In its complaint responses the landlord said it felt it had taken the resident’s reports seriously, and it had acted appropriately. The resident has told us they felt it took too long for the landlord to act, and they felt the landlord was too lenient in its approach to their neighbour.
19. We understand the resident’s position and we acknowledge the impact that their previous experiences of ASB has had on them, including on their wellbeing. It is clear that this has been a difficult situation for them.
20. Whilst we understand the resident’s strength of feeling, we have found that the landlord’s records show it responded promptly, kept the resident informed, and made significant efforts to improve the situation. We consider its actions to be proportionate, particularly as the reported noise did not appear to be deliberate or intended to cause distress. Based on this, we have found no maladministration occurred.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request for it to conduct vetting for an incoming tenant.
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord’s move or stay policy says in exceptional circumstances it can decide to sensitively let its properties. A property will usually be sensitively let if neighbours are vulnerable, or if neighbours have previously been victims of ASB or localised crime. When a property is designated as a sensitive let, the landlord can reject applications from potential tenants who have a history of ASB.
22. The resident and the landlord have said that after the previous neighbour was evicted, the landlord agreed to advertise the property as a sensitive let. This was appropriate given the resident’s history as a victim of serious ASB.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that when it let the property in November 2023, it carried out the required vetting checks on the upstairs neighbour. However it acknowledged that the property was not advertised as a sensitive let. The landlord said this occurred because the correct paperwork was not filed in time. It apologised for the error and offered the resident £100 compensation for the failure, plus £200 for not identifying the issue at stage 1 of the complaint.
24. The landlord confirmed that when the property was re-let in September 2024 it was advertised as a sensitive let. This was appropriate and showed the landlord had learned from its earlier error.
25. In summary, whilst the landlord had not advertised the property as a sensitive let, it had done the appropriate checks on the incoming tenant. This meant that it had carried out the required vetting, which was designed to reduce the risk of future ASB. We consider that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation appropriately addressed the resident’s complaint. Therefore, we have found that the landlord provided reasonable redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

26. The landlord’s complaints policy commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days and issuing a stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord will acknowledge escalation request within 5 working days, and it will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot meet its timescales, it may extend its response time by up to 10 working days by writing to the resident and explaining the reason for the extension.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 6 working days after it was made, which was 1 day outside of its policy. It then issued its stage 1 response 9 working days after acknowledging the complaint.
28. At stage 2, the landlord requested a 10 working days extension, and it did so within the timeframe outlined in its policy. It said an extension was needed as it was waiting for an additional response from an internal department. This was appropriate and in line with policy. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response 6 working days later.
29. While there was a one working day delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided its stage 1 response 9 working days later. Meaning it was able to send its stage one response within the timescales set out in its policy. As such we consider no failing occurred as the resident did not experience a delay.

Learning

30. No learning has been identified following this investigation and the landlord’s record keeping and communication with the resident was appropriate.