Network Homes Limited (202113831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113831

Network Homes Limited

26 April 2023

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 reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 3 April 2006. The property is a one-bed flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy lists noise nuisance from persistent dog barking as an example of antisocial behaviour. The policy says the landlord expects a reasonable level of tolerance between neighbours, but when antisocial behaviour is reported it will:
1. provide advice on, but not investigate, noise resulting from the everyday use of a property;
2. aim to respond within five working days and assign an experienced neighbourhood officer to the case as a primary point of contact;
3. make it clear whether it considers the reported issue to be antisocial behaviour and what action can be taken;
4. attempt early intervention before any legal action can be attempted. Examples of early intervention can include a referral to support services, verbal or written warnings, the use of acceptable behaviour agreements or mediation, the use of professional witnesses, pre-notice warning letters, or community protection warnings;
5. signpost residents to a noise app or use a noise recording machine where appropriate;
6. consider legal action if other interventions fail – this includes issuing a notice seeking possession.
The landlord’s website includes its antisocial behaviour toolkit. The toolkit recommends residents speak to their neighbours about disturbance from pets in the first instance and contact the local environmental health officer if problems persist as enforcement action can be used as evidence against the dog owner. It recommends completing diary sheets with dates and times of the incidents and that the resident contact the RSPCA if concerned about the welfare of a pet.
The landlord’s complaints and service recovery policy has been updated since this complaint was made. The version of the policy in force at the time defined a complaint as “a communication expressing dissatisfaction with the service provided by us”. The policy does not apply when concerns have not been raised within six months of the issue occurring. The complaints process is as follows:
1. An acknowledgement will be sent within five working days.
2. A stage one response will be sent within 10 working days.
3. A stage two response will be sent within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to comply, it will send the resident a holding letter setting out the new deadline.
4. When a complaint is refused, the landlord will give detailed reasons for refusal and contact details for the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s website says that reports of antisocial behaviour are not a complaint.

Scope of the investigation

From reviewing the information provided by both parties, it is evident that there are longstanding noise issues, and that the resident has complained to the neighbour, the local authority and the landlord about the noise for a number of years since at least 2017. The Ombudsman also notes the resident’s comments that the noise issues at the property continued after the landlord’s response to the complaint and that the dogs are also using the garden as a bathroom which makes the resident feel unwell.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This means the Ombudsman cannot look into the way the landlord handled any further noise reports made after the landlord’s stage two response, or any new issues raised by the resident after that stage, as those issues had not gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time (usually six months). The Ombudsman notes from the landlord’s records that there were reports of noise in 2017, a complaint about the landlord’s handling of noise reports in 2018 and reports of noise in 2020. The resident has requested compensation for three years of living with ongoing noise. The Ombudsman forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2022. While the Ombudsman does not dispute that noise issues might have been ongoing between April 2020 and 8 September 2021, it has seen no evidence that this was reported to the landlord at the time, or brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint about how it dealt with the reports. As such, this investigation will only consider the reports of noise nuisance from 8 September 2021, though previous noise reports and the landlord’s response may be referred to in this report for context.

Summary of events

On 8 and 24 September 2021, the resident reported noise from the neighbour above his property to the landlord. On 24 September 2021, he said the neighbour’s dog was left alone from 9am until midnight each day, and was barking and crying throughout the day. He said he had tried speaking to the neighbour but this had not helped.
The landlord referred the resident to the RSPCA and advised the resident to complete diary sheets setting out the dates and times of the noise as it said the noise was not constant. The resident completed a series of diary sheets from 24 September 2021 onwards and sent the diary sheets to the landlord on 5 October 2021. The resident’s diary sheets included reports of dogs running, jumping and barking in the property above, as well as the sound of snoring and what he believed was furniture being moved. The diary sheets show this happening at a range of times throughout the day.
On 14 December 2021, the resident made a noise complaint to the local authority.
On 17 February 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he had made a complaint to the landlord on 14 December 2021 but received no response, only an acknowledgement. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 and told it the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of a noise complaint and delays in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to raise and consider the complaint under its internal complaints procedure and issue a written response.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said the resident had reported noise twice in the previous six months – once on 8 September 2021 and once on 24 September 2021. It said he had previously reported everyday household noise but had not engaged with the landlord when it contacted him to discuss it. It said the reporting of antisocial behaviour falls outside of its complaints policy and if the resident wanted to make a complaint he needed to show when the landlord had not responded to a noise complaint.
On 28 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process. He said the noise was ongoing every day but when he contacted the landlord he was told there was nothing it could do. He said he had been filling in diary sheets for 18 months and that the Ombudsman had referred his complaint to the landlord. The landlord responded on the same day and told the resident no complaint had been logged. It repeated that if the resident wanted to log a complaint, he needed to provide evidence of making a report that the landlord had not responded to in the previous six months.
On 15 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage two. He said the noise was ongoing every day with dogs barking, jumping and running. The landlord said no stage one complaint had been made and continuing antisocial behaviour was not grounds for escalating a complaint. It said it had previously asked the resident for evidence it had not responded to a report of antisocial behaviour but he did not respond.
On 17 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported an abandoned dog in the property above. He said the issues had been ongoing for some time, but nothing was being done.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the noise. The landlord’s notes show the resident reported the abandoned dog referred to was the dog upstairs who was left home all day while the owner was out. The landlord’s notes showed it arranged for a home visit to the resident and the neighbour.
On 24 March 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord. It asked that the landlord issue either a stage one response or a letter giving reasons for refusing the complaint, together with referral rights so the resident could go to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s internal emails show it discussed the matter but chose not to log a complaint. It asked the neighbourhood officer to confirm the antisocial behaviour policy was being followed.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord spoke to some of the other residents in the building (not the neighbour complained of). They confirmed there was no abandoned dog and the neighbour in question was still living there. The landlord also spoke to the resident about the noise and followed the conversation up with a letter to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It understood the issues were ongoing but it needed sufficient evidence to support court action.
2. If environmental health officers took enforcement action, the landlord could use that as evidence against the neighbour.
3. The resident should continue with diary logs and use the recommended noise app to gather sufficient evidence for the landlord to go to court.
4. It would write to the neighbour to remind them of their obligations regarding noise.
5. If he had concerns about the welfare of an animal the resident should contact the RSPCA.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman. It said it would not raise a stage one complaint at this time as the complaint was about a dog barking, which it said was not a valid complaint. It said without the resident providing evidence that the landlord had not responded to reports, it would not log a complaint.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The resident reported that the dog was often left alone for long periods of time and started crying, barking and scratching things when that happened. The landlord asked the resident to knock on the neighbour’s door, making as much noise as possible, so it could hear the noise. The landlord’s notes of the visit state that while the resident and neighbourhood officer banged on the door, rang the buzzer and made noise in the communal corridor, the dog moved from the flat door and did not bark or acknowledge the noise being made. The landlord advised that there was insufficient evidence of noise nuisance and it could not act without evidence. It recommended the resident use the local authority’s noise app to record the noise reported, as there was no evidence of noise during the home visit.
The landlord’s logs say the resident told it on 7 April 2022 that things had quietened down a lot and that he was happy to close the enquiry and continue completing diary sheets. This is disputed by the resident.
On 12 April 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said the landlord visited the property and, although it initially appeared the landlord was being helpful, it then said there was not enough evidence for a complaint to be raised. The resident said he had sent in ample evidence in the form of recordings and diary sheets and wanted the landlord to either remove the dog or move the resident to another property.
On 14 April 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord. The Ombudsman said it had previously asked the landlord to respond to the complaint on 18 February 2022 and the landlord should either issue a stage one response or a complaint refusal letter which included referral rights to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman said that failure to do so in the next five working days might result in it issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
On 18 April 2022, the resident sent the landlord further diary sheets covering the period from 2 April 2022 to 16 April 2022.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord advised the Ombudsman it had raised a stage one complaint and would issue a response within ten working days.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It found no evidence of delays in acting on reports.
2. The resident had not provided sufficient evidence of noise nuisance for the landlord to be able to take legal action against the neighbour.
3. It had written several letters to the neighbour reminding them of obligations regarding noise and the need to be mindful of neighbours but this did not appear to have been effective.
4. It was not disputed that some level of noise nuisance was being experienced, but the landlord needed sufficient evidence to determine what legal action it could take.
5. It strongly recommended using the local authority’s noise app for evidence gathering as the neighbour would not be able to dispute it. The landlord would then be in a position to get an injunction against the neighbour to make them rehome the dog.
6. In the meantime, the resident should contact the local authority if he wanted to be moved, as the council dealt with all of the landlord’s transfer requests in the borough.
On 12 May 2022, the resident reported noise from the neighbour’s dog to the landlord. The landlord opened another antisocial behaviour case and advised that the evidence provided so far was not sufficient. It asked the resident to continue completing diary sheets and contact an environmental health officer.
On 18 May 2022, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. He said:
1. An incorrect name was used in the stage one response.
2. He had been completing diary sheets about this issue for 12 years and it was still ongoing.
3. He had been waiting for a resolution for more than a month and the noise was impacting his health.
4. He disputed the landlord’s comment that he had said the noise had stopped – this was only for two days and was because the neighbour was away and knew the neighbourhood officer was visiting.
5. The noise had gotten worse as the neighbour got a second dog and the resident wanted action taken.
6. The resident had already approached the RSPCA but they would not do anything.
7. The dog was using the front garden as a toilet and it made the resident feel ill.
8. The suggested noise app was not useful.
9. He had not received the further diary sheets he requested and disliked having to copy his contemporaneous notes over to the diary sheets.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 23 June 2022. It said:
1. The complaint about the resident’s name being incorrect was not part of the initial complaint so it could not comment. It could not locate any correspondence where that happened, but apologised if that was the case.
2. It could see there was a history of noise reports going back four years but its complaints policy said it would only look at events going back six months.
3. Diary sheets had been provided but the dates on some of them were unclear. From the stage one response, it appeared action was taken in line with policies on each occasion noise was reported, but the outcome was not what the resident wanted.
4. The resident needed to take the recommended steps to provide evidence, such as downloading and using the noise app.
5. It had written to and spoken to the neighbour. The next step was to attempt mediation, and if that failed the next step would be enforcing the tenancy.
6. No evidence had been provided regarding excrement in the garden.
7. The resident had been reporting noise for a significant length of time and the landlord had taken multiple steps to support the resident. The lack of evidence meant the landlord was limited in what it could do.
8. It accepted it could have taken stronger action at an earlier date irrespective of whether it had evidence of the noise as the dog was an unauthorised pet. It apologised for this.
On 28 June 2022, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the landlord had not done anything to help with the noise, he wanted compensation for three years’ worth of living with noise, the noise app did not work and the only solution was that either the dog was rehomed or the landlord moved the resident to another flat.

Assessment and findings

Reports of noise nuisance

The resident has made multiple reports of noise from his neighbour’s property. He says the noise is mainly from dogs barking, jumping and running around, but he has also reported noise from furniture being moved around at night and the sounds of the neighbour snoring. He said the noise was loud enough to wake him up and stop him being able to sleep. He said this had been ongoing for more than 16 years. The landlord’s records show the resident reported noise on various occasions in 2017, as well as in 2020 and September 2021.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether noise reported by a resident amounts to antisocial behaviour or statutory noise nuisance. It also is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the antisocial behaviour is taking place as alleged. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
Cases where there is a history of noise reports over an extended period, such as in this case, can be challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its antisocial behaviour policy.
The resident reported noise from his neighbour’s flat on 8 September 2021. The landlord has provided no evidence to show any action being taken in response, either by way of investigation, advice or confirming it did not consider the noise to amount to noise nuisance. As the landlord has not provided evidence to show it took any action at this stage, it failed to demonstrate it responded to this initial report appropriately or in accordance with its policy.
The resident reported noise again on 24 September 2021. He said the neighbour’s dog was barking and crying in the property at odd times of the day and night. The landlord’s records show it referred the resident to the RSPCA with regard to his animal welfare concerns and asked him to complete diary sheets. It explained this was because the noise was not constant. The landlord sent diary sheets to the resident by email the same day, and by post on 27 September 2021 at his request. The resident sent completed diary sheets to the landlord on 5 October 2021. The landlord has provided no evidence of any action taken after it received the diary sheets.
Dog barking needs to be persistent in order to constitute antisocial behaviour under the landlord’s policy. It also needs to go beyond everyday noise from living in a property. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets in the first instance as it needed to ascertain the level, times and frequency of the noise to assess whether it was more than everyday noise and what action, if any, it could take. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it complied with its antisocial behaviour policy after that request. It should have acknowledged and reviewed the diary sheets, explained whether or not it considered the noise to be antisocial behaviour and told the resident what options were or were not available to it in order to comply with its policy. It has not provided evidence to show it did so.
The resident has referred to multiple phone calls with the landlord in which the landlord said it could not do anything about the noise. It is not clear exactly when those calls took place, and the landlord has provided no records of these calls. As such, it is not clear what, if anything, was said over the phone. In any event, the landlord should have explained to the resident whether or not it considered the noise to be noise nuisance, why the evidence provided was insufficient, and why it determined that there was no further action it could take. It has not shown it did so. There is also no evidence of a referral to an environmental health officer or a noise app at this stage. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with its antisocial behaviour policy, and was not good practice.
Neither the landlord nor the resident have provided evidence of further noise complaints being made to the landlord between the diary sheets being submitted on 5 October 2021 and the Ombudsman forwarding the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 February 2022 and explained that he had previously reported everyday household noise but did not engage when the landlord contacted him to discuss it. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any call logs, contemporaneous phone notes or other evidence of those calls taking place, or what discussions took place. It is therefore not clear if the landlord was referring to historic reports or those made in September 2021. In the absence of that evidence, there is nothing to confirm the landlord did attempt to engage with the resident following his submission of the diary sheets. It is unreasonable that the landlord stated the resident had not engaged when it contacted him to discuss the noise when there is no evidence to support this.
The resident continued to raise the noise issues with the landlord on 28 February 2022, 15 March 2022 and 17 March 2022. The landlord has provided an email from the neighbourhood officer dated 24 March 2022 which indicates they spoke to the resident about the issues on 21 March 2022. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any contemporaneous notes of that conversation or whether any advice, information or action plan was discussed with the resident. It was also three weeks after the report on 28 February 2022, which is not in line with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy.
The landlord spoke to the resident again around 25 March 2022. The follow-up letter dated 29 March 2022 explained that the landlord had referred the resident to the RSPCA and to environmental health. It also explained the importance of continuing with the diary logs, asked the resident to download the Noise app and said it would be writing to the neighbour to remind them of their obligations regarding noise nuisance. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour logs say that the neighbourhood officer also spoke to the other residents in the building, and told the resident that it needed enough evidence to support legal action against the neighbour if the case went to court. The landlord wrote to the neighbour about the noise the next day.
The neighbourhood officer carried out a further home visit on 1 April 2022 with the intention of seeing if they could hear the noise. They said they did not witness any noise from the dog. The landlord followed up with the resident on 7 April 2022, and its notes showed it was agreed that the resident would continue completing diary sheets until there was enough evidence for further action to be taken.
Overall, the overall steps taken by the landlord during March-April 2022 appear reasonable and in line with its antisocial behaviour policy – it requested diary sheets, signposted the resident to environmental health and the Noise app, carried out home visits, spoke to the neighbours and issued a warning letter to the neighbour in question. Taken as a whole, the actions are consistent with the antisocial behaviour policy. However, the majority of those steps were not taken until six months after the noise reports were made in September 2021, which is an unreasonable delay. The landlord also has not shown that it took steps to manage the resident’s expectations as to the action it could, or could not, reasonably take, leading the resident to believe the problems were being ignored and his diary sheets were not going to lead to an outcome.
After reviewing the resident’s evidence, the landlord accepted that he might be experiencing noise nuisance, but concluded no enforcement action could be taken based on the evidence provided. Although the resident’s diary sheets showed instances of barking after 11pm, the majority of the records were of barking during the day. In the circumstances, and without any evidence from environmental health to confirm whether or not there was statutory noise nuisance, the landlord was limited in the enforcement action it could take under its antisocial behaviour policy. So, while the landlord could have taken steps to investigate the noise sooner, and to manage expectations, its conclusions regarding noise nuisance were not unreasonable based on the evidence available to it at the time.
However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it could have taken tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour sooner, and without evidence of noise nuisance, as it knew the dog in question was not an authorised pet. The landlord maintains that the steps taken were proportionate to the noise reports being made. It has since started taking the necessary steps for tenancy enforcement. Taking those steps now does not necessarily mean there was a failure in not taking action sooner, as there could be a number of reasons why it was not appropriate to do so. However, when the Ombudsman asked the landlord why this action was not taken sooner, it said it maintained its previous actions were proportionate. It said that while earlier enforcement action may have assisted, it did not believe it would have significantly changed the course of events. The landlord has however not explained when it first became aware the neighbour’s dog was unauthorised and why it did not act sooner. This indicates that there was a failure on the part of the landlord to review its records when considering what enforcement action was available to it.
Furthermore, as set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on noise complaints, the Ombudsman recommends that landlords consider reports of everyday noise under a separate noise policy rather than under an antisocial behaviour policy. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so, or taking steps to assess whether there were other contributing factors to the level of the noise, such as building defects or poor sound insulation, which it could assist with. Given that the resident reported that the noise of both the dogs running around and the neighbour snoring in a different property were loud enough to wake him in his property, and that the same resident had been reporting the noise for a number of years, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate whether there were any contributing factors to the noise from the property itself.

Complaint handling

The resident said he made a complaint on 14 December 2021 and received an acknowledgement but no response. The Ombudsman has reviewed the email in question and notes that it was a noise complaint made to the local authority’s housing management department rather than a complaint made to the landlord about the way it handled the reports of noise. As such, there was no complaint for the landlord to respond to at that stage.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 18 February 2022, following contact from the resident, and advised it that the resident was dissatisfied with the way noise complaints had been handled. This was a notification of dissatisfaction and it was clear at that stage that the resident wished to make a complaint. The landlord was therefore required under its complaints policy to send the resident an acknowledgement within five working days and a stage one response within ten working days. If it was refusing the complaint, it was required under its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to give detailed reasons and contact details for the Ombudsman.
Both the resident and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord regarding the complaint after 18 February 2022. The resident sent expressions of dissatisfaction on 28 February 2022 and 17 March 2022, and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 24 March 2022, asking it to issue either a stage one response or a letter refusing the complaint which included the Ombudsman’s contact details.
The landlord declined to consider the complaint without the resident providing evidence that the landlord had not responded to a noise complaint. It also did not provide contact details for the Ombudsman when refusing the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and created an artificial barrier to the resident raising a complaint. An expression of dissatisfaction does not need to be accompanied by evidence to be considered a complaint.
The landlord chose not to log a complaint until 21 April 2022 – more than two months after it was first made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction. This was five working days after the Ombudsman told the landlord it would consider issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order if the landlord did not issue a response to the complaint within five working days.
The landlord’s decision not to log a complaint before that point was not in line with best practice, its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has therefore not acted appropriately with regard to its complaint handling. Neither did it acknowledge this shortcoming when responding to the complaint or indicate how it would improve its complaints handling in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has not shown that it took any action in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance on 8 September 2021 or took adequate steps in response to the report on 24 September 2021. It also has not shown that it took steps to manage the resident’s expectations as to the action it could or could not take at the time the resident reported the noise.
The steps the landlord took from 21 March 2022 were reasonable but were delayed. This led the resident to believe the reports were not being taken seriously. The landlord has acknowledged it could have taken enforcement action regarding the dog sooner, but did not do so. It also took no steps to investigate whether there were issues with the property itself which contributed to the noise levels.
The landlord unreasonably delayed logging the resident’s complaint both when the Ombudsman referred the complaint and when the resident made further expressions of dissatisfaction directly to the landlord. Its actions were not in line with its complaints policy, good practice or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress caused by its maladministration in handling the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property;
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in complaint handling.
2. Consider, in light of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report, whether there are further appropriate enquiries it should make to determine if there are other contributing factors to the noise, such as the flooring in the upstairs neighbour’s flat, or any structural issues.
3. Arrange refresher training for complaint handlers and staff who handle noise complaints on its antisocial behaviour and complaints processes to ensure the processes are understood and that complaints are not refused for the wrong reasons.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping to ensure that contemporaneous notes of all contact regarding noise reports are made and kept.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its approach to noise complaints to assess whether it is consistent with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight Report.