London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015494

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

16 September 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy agreement began on 24 January 2011 and describes the property as a two-bedroom ground floor flat. The property is within a low-rise block.
During the course of this complaint, the resident has advised the landlord that she has depression and that her daughter is autistic.
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy that shows that “residents are expected not to commit ASB, or to allow household members… to commit ASB”. It adds that noise will be considered as ASB where it is “persistent, deliberate or targeted” but not where it is “caused by people going about their daily lives”. The policy requires the landlord to:
1. log and acknowledge ASB reports within one to three working days, depending on the case priority;
2. “assign a priority for the case based on the type of ASB reported and assess reports using the evidence available”;
3. keep in regular contact with the complainant, provide advice and form an action plan;
4. use methods such as warning letters and mediation to prevent the problem escalating;
5. take proportionate legal action.
The landlord’s website sets out that tenants need to obtain permission from it if they wish to take on a lodger and that the tenant will be responsible for the behaviour of the lodger.
The landlord has a repairs policy that shows that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including walls and roofs. It adds that it will repair floorboards but is not responsible for floor coverings.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage complaints procedure where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to make a financial award to residents where there has been a service failure that has had an impact on, or caused losses to, them.
This complaint concerns a neighbour living in a flat above the resident’s. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.
The resident and landlord agree that the former has made reports of noise nuisance and ASB over several years. However, this investigation is focused on events from December 2019, since when the resident advised that noise nuisance recurred due to the actions of lodgers in her neighbour’s flat.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s internal emails show that the local authority contacted it in December 2019, notifying it that the resident had reported noise nuisance from the flat above which she said the neighbour had refused to reduce. It also recorded reports it received from the resident during this period of constant banging and dragging noises from above plus DIY.
The landlord’s records show that it noted in mid-February 2020 that it had previously closed an ASB case but that the resident had again reported nuisance and it had informed her to provide evidence and raise her concerns with the local authority.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 February 2020. It advised that a new ASB case manager had taken on her concerns and would maintain fortnightly contact with her but evidence would be needed to avoid the case being closed. Over the subsequent two months, the case records show that:
1. the resident advised that the neighbour had not been at the above flat since December 2019 and it was lodgers who were causing a noise nuisance with a loud TV which she would provide evidence of through the Noise App;
2. the landlord investigated the resident’s report by making enquiries of her about the presence of lodgers;
3. the resident advised that the neighbour had returned in mid-March 2020 but there were still lodgers causing a noise nuisance through DIY, noisy floorboards, a washing machine, music and a loud TV which she said happened whenever there were inconsiderate sub-tenants in the flat;
4. the landlord continued to request Noise App evidence and asked for a convenient time to speak to the resident during mid-March to early April 2020;
5. the landlord advised the resident in mid-April 2020 that it had spoken to her neighbour and would investigate the flooring, noise and sub-letting allegations albeit it would not be able to divulge details of the action taken on the alleged tenancy fraud;
6. the landlord sent an action plan to the resident on 22 April 2020 that showed that it intended to listen to any recordings she said she had provided and investigate the allegations, including by interviewing her neighbour;
7. the landlord advised the resident in late April 2020 that it had reviewed sound recordings dating back to January 2020 but they were just muffled noises apart from one incidence (on 11 April 2020) of music playing;
8. the resident claimed in late April 2020 that the Noise App was intended to muffle sounds and continued to report noise nuisance from above (children playing, loud music and TV) into May 2020;
9. the landlord noted that it spoke and wrote to the neighbour in May 2020 and told the resident that it would address floorboard noise once Covid-19 related restrictions eased and it returned to a normal repairs service.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in late May 2020 on the grounds that:
1. the neighbour above had been sub-letting for nine years with the most recent lodger moving in during December 2019 and she began to report ASB since then;
2. the landlord had failed to investigate or communicate with her;
3. she was being awoken in the early hours of the morning by noise such as music, a TV, hoovering and a washing machine but the Noise App was not picking these up.
The landlord made attempts in late May to early June 2020 to obtain information from the local authority about any reports it had received of excessive noise.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 4 June 2020. It concluded that:
1. due to data protection, it could not divulge details to her about its actions in regard to the neighbour’s tenancy but it confirmed that, as long as its permission was obtained, tenants were allowed to take on lodgers;
2. there were service failures in its communications on the ASB issue but this had been dealt with following complaints in January-February 2020 and a new case manager had been assigned to her;
3. it would pass on the resident’s feedback about problems with using the Noise App but it recommended she continue to try to provide evidence using this method and by making reports to the local authority environmental health team;
4. it reiterated a previous mediation offer, particularly given a review of the previous 12 months of ASB reports did not show that it would have been able to take tenancy enforcement action against her neighbour;
5. it apologised for communication delays and in progressing the matter of the neighbour’s flooring repairs;
6. it would be in contact within five working days to provide an update following its consideration of the most recent noise nuisance evidence she had sent.
The resident replied to the landlord on 6 June 2020, advising that there were persistent issues with lodgers, the neighbour had not been given permission to have them and he should not be allowed any given the ASB caused. She also provided an incident diary covering the previous week with jumping, banging, shouting and loud music noise listed each day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 June 2020, explaining it could not give her information about tenancy arrangements with her neighbour and that, regardless of the lodger arrangements, it had not obtained enough evidence to take enforcement action. The resident reiterated on 12 June 2020 that she did not think someone with the neighbour’s track record of ASB should be allowed lodgers.
The resident continued to report ASB in late June 2020, providing another list of incidents during early-mid June 2020 that included TV noise and banging. She also advised of a verbal confrontation between her and the neighbour on 23 June 2020.
The landlord replied to the resident on 23 June 2020, advising it had spoken at length to the neighbour and requesting that the resident provide further Noise App recordings for the next 10 days.
The resident reported further noise nuisance from above during late June to mid-July 2020 in the form of talking into the early hours, loud music and TV at all hours, amplified bass, shouting and the dragging of furniture.
During this period, the landlord recorded that it spoke to the neighbour, made a Police information disclosure request and wrote to the neighbour about his lodgers being moved on.
The landlord advised the resident on 17 July 2020 that there was nothing further for it to investigate beyond what it had concluded at stage one of the complaints process.
The landlord issued a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on 21 July 2020, describing the allegations it had received and requesting that his lodger vacate the flat the following month. It added that he was responsible for the behaviour of his guests. The neighbour denied the allegations on the same day and provided photographs of several carpeted rooms in his flat.
The landlord acknowledged noise reports from the resident on 21 July 2020, adding that it had issued a warning to the neighbour and asking for any further evidence she could offer. The resident replied to explain that it was more difficult to record TV noise than music and that the dragging and knocking noises were quiet when played back.
The resident submitted further reports on 28-30 July 2020, including dates and times when she had been disturbed by the dragging of furniture in the flat above and she mentioned noise from a washing machine and a window being slammed.
The landlord acknowledged the above reports in late July to early August 2020, asking for an update on noise and advising it would see what local authority assistance there was.
The resident confirmed during mid-August 2020 that the noise remained a problem, mentioning neighbours screaming and jumping on the floor.
The landlord and resident continued to exchange emails during September 2020 where:
1. the resident reported the furniture and shouting noises in the early hours remained a problem, advised that her daughter was now being home schooled, queried why the lodgers had still not vacated and raised concern about potential future lodgers;
2. the landlord confirmed it would listen to new Noise App recordings, take further action and find out why the lodgers were still there, advising that the neighbour would need to get permission for any new lodgers.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 17 September 2020, following up why lodgers were still in the property (despite an August 2020 deadline that had passed) and advising that enforcement action would now proceed.
The resident reported on 1 October 2020 that she had been woken by noise several times the night before and she wanted an update on whether the landlord could attend to creaking floorboards yet. She chased an update on 11 October 2020, advising that she had been awoken again that morning.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2020, advising that it had spoken to her neighbour who raised concern about being able to move about his flat and querying whether any recent recordings had been submitted. It added that the neighbour had confirmed the last remaining lodger was shortly due to leave so it would consider closing the ASB case.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 October 2020, advising it was taking enforcement action about the lodger issue but needed Noise App evidence for it to do the same regarding the alleged nuisance. It said it had considered footage from 17 May 2020, 26 June 2020 and 13-22 July 2020 but it still did not have evidence to allow enforcement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2020, further to a telephone conversation with her, and acknowledged that the last lodger had moved out so it would monitor the case for a couple of weeks before closing it.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2020, advising there was a still a lodger in the flat above as there had been a shouting incident between them and the neighbour that led to the Police being called (who removed the lodger). The landlord replied on 13 November 2020, advising it had spoken to the neighbour and told him he should not get a new lodger without permission.
The resident made further reports in November 2020 that the neighbour above was drunk, shouting and jumping up and down in his bedroom during the night, causing a nuisance to her family. She provided a Police reference and alleged that her car had been vandalised.
The resident reported in December 2020 that there had been five further noise incidents caused by the neighbour, providing times and descriptions (loud music and shouting). She added that the neighbour had also taken on a new lodger.
The resident advised the landlord in late December 2020 that she had spoken to her neighbour about the noise but this had been a waste of time as he had woken them in the early hours by shouting on the telephone and had a speaker on the floor which caused a horrendous noise.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s new reports in early January 2021, noting it had opened a new ASB case file and advising that it had not given permission for the neighour to take new lodgers. The resident added that the neighbour had come to her property drunk on a couple of occasions since they had spoken about noise the previous month.
The resident made further reports in early February 2021 that the neighbour was still shouting on the phone. The landlord acknowledged the report and said it had spoken to the neighbour.
The resident forwarded evidence to the landlord in late February 2021, demonstrating that she had reported an issue with noise from, and flooring in, the upstairs flat in 2012 and 2014. She added that a furniture dragging noise from above was being caused by a sliding wardrobe.
The resident advised the landlord in early March 2021 that there were again lodgers in the property. The landlord replied to advise it had written to the neighbour about this and subsequently asked the resident for two weeks of noise recordings.
The resident approached this Service in March 2021 on the grounds that:
1. lodgers kept on moving in and out of the property above and were responsible for ASB which the landlord delayed in resolving;
2. the neighbour above had been told he was no longer permitted to have lodgers but had ignored this and the floorboards were faulty with no sound insulation;
3. her and her children were suffering with their health due to the ASB.
The resident made reports to the landlord in early April 2021 that she had not heard from it for four weeks and lodgers were still stomping around and causing a nuisance. She added that the neighbour still had his speakers on the floor. The landlord responded in mid-April 2021, advising it had reviewed recordings but could not establish any nuisance and that it did not install sound insulation.
The landlord noted the resident had called it in mid-April 2021, reiterating that it should not be allowing sub-letting and asking what was happening about the floorboards.
This Service passed the resident’s March 2021 representations to the landlord. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2021, acknowledging the complaint, and she replied, asking that it also consider the following:
1. she had experienced multiple lodgers in the property above since 2011 which got to an overcrowded level and was particularly a problem in the main bedroom;
2. she had been told in November 2020 that the tenant above would need to get permission from it before taking in new lodgers but this had not been enforced;
3. she understood that the tenant above was responsible for the floorboard repairs which she wanted the landlord to make him undertake;
4. she had depression and her daughter had autism yet the landlord had left them to deal with the situation alone and not helped them with a move.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 April 2021, concluding that:
1. it had received a report of loud music and TV noise from the resident in February 2020, after which it sent an action plan and recommended she use the Noise App to collect recordings;
2. it had reviewed the recordings and asked the neighbour to be mindful of the noise and the floor coverings would be reviewed;
3. it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour about lodgers but they had moved out in November 2020 and it had closed the ASB case;
4. it received new reports from the resident in December 2020 of ongoing noise and new lodgers but had not received any recordings so could not pursue further action;
5. further noise nuisance was reported in April 2021 but the evidence it had received did not demonstrate a nuisance;
6. its maintenance team had been unable to deal with the floorboard repair due to Covid-19 restrictions but a new order had been raised as restrictions were easing;
7. it said it would send a new action plan, approach the local authority about putting in equipment to assess statutory nuisance, speak to both parties about a good neighbour agreement and maintain regular contact with her;
8. it had received a transfer request on 11 December 2019 but its transfer arrangements were due to end in May 2021, after which the resident would need to explore a move through the mutual exchange process.
The resident wrote to the landlord the same day, alleging that the members of staff involved to date had not helped her and querying why the neighbour was not being challenged on taking in lodgers without permission. She added in early May 2021 that he had moved back into the bedroom and was stomping around and shouting on the phone. The landlord put these allegations to the neighbour and advised the resident that the neighbour had escalated his request for permission to have lodgers and that this had been agreed.
The resident confirmed on 11 May 2021 that she wanted to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. the landlord had denied the neighbour permission for new lodgers in January 2021 but this had been reversed;
2. she would not sign a good neighbour agreement as she had already signed her tenancy and was acting in accordance with that;
3. there was still constant stomping and banging and none of the landlord’s proposed actions would help apart from the floorboard repairs.
The resident made reports in mid-late May 2021 that her household was being kept awake by noise between 10-11:30pm in the flat above. She added that her property was now uninhabitable due to the constant noise from above and provided voice note recordings which she said were of banging, snoring and creaking floorboards. The landlord updated the resident during this period, advising that a floorboard appointment had been booked for the following month.
The resident reported to the landlord on 1 June 2021 that she had spoken to lodgers in the flat above (as the neighbour was away on holiday) and they were different to the ones she had spoken to the month before. She added that she had submitted recordings but the ASB case officer had not reviewed them.
The resident reported on a few occasions in early-mid June 2021 that her and her daughters had been awoken by noise in the early hours of the morning.
The landlord’s repairs records from 14 June 2021 show that it had identified that the flooring creaked and was noisy and the whole block was like this due to the type of flooring.
The landlord recorded in mid-late June 2021 that it had visited different flats in the building and noted that the sound was likely to be due to the property rather than being ASB albeit the resident continued to report shouting and music.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 29 June 2021. It concluded that:
1. its investigations had established only one instance of noise nuisance when loud music had been detected, following which it spoke to the neighbour and he agreed to place an item under the speaker to minimise noise transfer;
2. the neighbour had been informed about other reports and co-operated with moving out lodgers in November 2020 after it sent a warning letter in July 2020;
3. it liaised with the neighbour in December 2020 but no further action could be taken due to lack of evidence at this time;
4. it assessed three recordings in April 2021 but none of these demonstrated ASB so it told her no further action could be taken;
5. it had visited the property above and witnessed carpets to all flooring and, due to data protection, could not give details about why it had approved lodgers;
6. after the stage one complaint response, a new action plan was sent, both parties had been asked to sign a good neighbour contract, it had recently conducted a home visit and it had approached the local authority (who said they could not assist with household noise);
7. it was awaiting a response from the maintenance team about the outcome of the flooring work order;
8. it reiterated the advice from the stage one complaint response about the possibility of a property move;
9. it remained willing to investigate any new ASB reports but could not penalise tenants for usual daily activities;
10. it apologised and awarded £30 for the delay in handling the stage two complaint.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord’s internal emails from early July 2021 show that floorboard repairs to the flat above were scheduled in for August 2021 but it needed to liaise with the neighbour regarding arrangements to reinstate carpets. It recorded that it intended to attempt works to the neighbour’s hallway before deciding whether to extend works to the rest of the flat.
The resident advised this Service in August 2021 that she remained dissatisfied as:
1. she did not believe that the landlord was checking whether new lodgers had permission to move into the property above;
2. the floorboards, structure of the building and activity of the neighbours meant that her household could constantly hear stomping and slamming;
3. the neighbour was not passing on requests from the landlord to his lodgers so they had not changed their behaviour;
4. the Noise App facility did not work well which she had told the landlord and it had been incorrect to close the ASB case in November 2020;
5. the tenant still had a speaker on his floor which caused a noise nuisance and the landlord had failed to update her regarding the outcome of the maintenance team’s review of the flooring;
6. she was on anti-depressants with ill health due to the nuisance and her daughter was sensitive to noise due to autism.
The resident and landlord have exchanged further correspondence since the end of the complaints process that show that:
1. the resident continued to chase progress during July-August 2021 about the flooring repair, furniture noise, loud music and lodgers keeping her up until 1am and waking her at 6am;
2. the resident alleged that the neighbour had not co-operated in August 2021 when repair operatives attended and they had not been given sufficient information by the landlord about what the problem was;
3. the resident continued to report lodger noise nuisance through music and a loud TV in early September 2021 (during which period the landlord was still considering what arrangements could be made regarding reinstatement of the neighbour’s carpets following its proposed inspection of the floorboards);
4. the landlord told the resident in September 2021 that there was no disrepair to the flooring above and that the material naturally creaked so no further action could be taken, particularly as there were adequate floor coverings;
5. the landlord sent an action plan to the resident in October 2021, including an inspection of the area around the neighbour’s washing machine, fortnightly contact with her and written recommendations to her neighbour on reducing household noise;
6. the landlord wrote to the neighbour accordingly in October 2021 with particular reference to his washing machine;
7. the resident submitted more sound recordings in November 2021 which she chased the landlord to listen to in December 2021;
8. the landlord advised in December 2021 that the recordings did not demonstrate any ASB and the neighbour had advised his speaker was not on the floor so it would consider closing the case file.

Assessment and findings

The landlord was made aware of the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from the flat above through reports direct from her and via the local authority in December 2019. According to its ASB policy, the landlord was obliged to assess the case priority, offer advice to the complainant and form an action plan. However, there is no evidence that these actions had been taken by February 2020 when the resident reiterated her concerns and the landlord advised it had recently closed an ASB case. This was therefore inappropriate and led to a delay in the landlord acting on the resident’s reports.
Nevertheless, the landlord put this right by subsequently acknowledging and apologising for its communication delay and assigning the case to a new ASB manager who committed to remain in fortnightly contact with the resident from February 2020. Over the course of the subsequent two months, it retained communications with the resident, created an action plan (that was sent to the resident), interviewed the neighbour and reviewed evidence provided by the resident (which failed to establish there was ASB). These actions were all in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy to liaise with the complainant, create an action plan and assess the available evidence. Although there was insufficient evidence of ASB, the landlord still issued a warning letter to the neighbour in May 2020 which demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and endeavoured to prevent the ASB escalating as its policy obliged.
The landlord continued to report noise nuisance from above during May 2020 which she primarily attributed to lodgers. Over the subsequent two months, the landlord interviewed the neighbour, offered mediation, asked the resident to provide evidence of nuisance, attempted to obtain information from the Police and local authority and wrote to the neighbour regarding the lodgers being moved out. These were all reasonable actions on the landlord’s part to seek to obtain evidence of ASB and mitigate the noise in the meantime by addressing the lodger issue with the neighbour.
The resident reported in July 2020 that the lodgers remained in the property despite the landlord’s actions. The landlord responded by writing to the neighbour on a couple of occasions, warning of enforcement if the unauthorised lodgers were not moved on, and working with him until November 2020 when they apparently moved out. It also reviewed more recordings provided by the resident but advised her that these still did not demonstrate ASB. Given the resident’s focus was on the behaviour of the neighbour’s lodgers at this time, it was reasonable for the landlord to progress enforcement actions against, and offer advice to, the neighbour until the lodgers vacated the flat. Although the landlord closed the existing ASB case at this time, this did not contribute to any later delay in its handling of the matter as it opened a new case when the resident reported in December 2020 that the neighbour was causing noise nuisance himself and had taken on a new lodger.
The landlord wrote to the resident on a couple of occasions during December 2020 to February 2021, advising her that it had spoken to the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that it investigated the resident’s allegations about the neighbour having a speaker on his floor, coming to her door drunk, shouting loudly or having taken on more lodgers without permission. The landlord was obliged to record a case priority, keep in regular contact with the complainant and form an action plan so its inaction during this period and delay of four months in offering an action plan was inappropriate, particularly given it was aware of the potential vulnerability of the resident’s household.
The landlord apparently authorised the neighbour to move in new lodgers around this time but it took until May 2021 for it to offer any clarity to the resident on this and there is no evidence as to how, or whether, the landlord factored the noise nuisance issues into its decision-making or considered the resident’s report in June 2021 that the lodgers had changed again. This delay in updating the resident and the lack of clarity as to how it authorised the lodger permission was unreasonable. The delay would inevitably have left the resident uncertain as to the landlord’s stance on the return of lodgers to the flat above and meant she had to chase it for updates.
Nevertheless, the landlord completed a further assessment of sound recordings when they were received in April 2021 and these again did not demonstrate that there was evidence of ASB. It also visited the building in June 2021 and was similarly unable to establish ASB. The landlord was therefore limited in its ability to pursue any enforcement actions against the neighbour and it informed the resident accordingly in its final complaint response.
Throughout the noise nuisance reports and complaint, the resident has stated that there was a fault with the floorboards in the flat above that made noise nuisance more serious. The landlord was initially unable to investigate this factor as shortly after the resident’s February 2020 report, the government’s Covid-19 lockdown restrictions were introduced and it was therefore not possible to inspect the relevant properties as landlords were limited to emergency works only.
Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that its assessment of the neighbour’s floorboards remained incomplete at the point the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process in June 2021. This was at least 14 months after the landlord initially said it would investigate the flooring. Although it had established that the neighbour’s flat had carpet floor coverings, this represented an unreasonable delay in it diagnosing whether there was a fault with the floorboards.
Since the end of the complaints process, the landlord has determined that the floorboard material means that some creaking is inevitable and that there is no repair requirement. Although the landlord is under no obligation to improve the flooring in the building, it is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service how it reached the conclusion that the problem was with the floorboard material and how it determined what the material was – a recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
Landlords are not generally required to take formal action for noise that is considered everyday household noise, even when the noise is exacerbated by sound transference, unless the nuisance is caused in some way by repair issues which the landlord is responsible for. If there are no apparent repair issues a landlord does not have an obligation to provide noise insulation, as this would be considered an improvement to the property, and beyond the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s approach between December 2019 and June 2021 was broadly in line with its ASB policy as it assessed the resident’s sound recordings, signposted her to the local authority, offered mediation, interviewed the alleged perpetrator and issued warnings to him when it obtained evidence of a potential tenancy breach. These actions were proportionate responses to the resident’s noise nuisance reports and reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector as appropriate actions to take when investigating noise nuisance.
However, although its overall approach was proportionate, there were instances of service failure by the landlord as it:
1. delayed in investigating, and creating an action plan, for new noise nuisance reports made by the resident during December 2020 and April 2021 (and did not update her on its decision to authorise lodgers until May 2021);
2. contributed to delays in investigating the resident’s concerns about the floorboards between February 2020 and June 2021.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.

Reasons

The landlord did not act in accordance with its ASB policy between December 2020 and April 2021 as it failed to maintain regular contact with the complainant and form an action plan. It also contributed to delays in assessing whether any flooring repairs were required.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £175 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her noise nuisance reports.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its assessment of the flooring in the building to establish how it determined what the floorboard material was and concluded that it could not stop it creaking; it should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of this assessment.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.