London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202215918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215918

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 April 2024

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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s letters of warning to the resident.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied, together with her baby, a one-bedroom downstairs flat in a converted house. The upstairs flat was owned by a leaseholder who during the period of the complaint had let it to a couple and their children. The occupiers will be referred to in this report as N, and, where it is relevant, Mr or Mrs N. The landlord was the freeholder.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, the following was a discretionary ground for possession: The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality.
During the complaint, the landlord referred to a clause in the resident’s tenancy agreement as follows: “You, your family, friends and relatives or anyone living with or visiting you (including children) must not do any of the following: anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone in the local area or which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area.”
The ASB policy stated as follows:
1. “Residents must acknowledge that day to day activities, such as noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided, and accept that sometimes, while the behaviour of another family is frustrating, it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.
2. If, after considering the complaint, we are unable to take action on behalf of the complainant/reporting party, we will explain why and point residents towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support.
3. ASB included noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted such as loud music, banging, verbal abuse, race related including refugee/asylum seeker.
4. ASB excluded noise caused by people going about their daily lives, e.g. using staircases.
5. Where the reporting parties, victims and witnesses fail to provide supporting evidence this will be a factor in the assessment. We will log and decide upon the report based on the information received, even if it is unconfirmed or unsubstantiated. We will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case. In cases of serious crime, we usually require that the complainant/reporting party report the incident to the police before we can carry out further action.”
The landlord did not provide a copy of its lease with the leaseholder to this Service. However, it informed us that as its relationship was with the leaseholder, not N, any action would be taken against the leaseholder. It “would review the terms of the lease and advise leaseholder of any breaches that have taken place. They would need to address this with their tenant”. If the ASB continued and it had evidence to support this, it would consider legal action.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure. The response timescales were 10 working days at Stage 1 and, at Stage 2, 20 working days of the request to escalate.

Chronology

On 19 October 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She had lived in her home for 10 years and seen 3 changes of owners, the most recent 3 years previously. The owners redid all the flooring during renovation. The previous owners did not put any insulation in between the floor, install acoustic batts or underlayment or hang any acoustic foam panels. It was wooden flooring. “As a result, every single day was torture”.
2. She asked the landlord to urge the owner to undertake that work, obtain evidence or send a surveyor to carry out an assessment.
3. She referred to a letter attached. The Service has identified the following undated letter:
  1. There was no insulation between the floors added to which it was a wooden floor.
  2. The resident cited Buildings Regulations regarding noise. She asked the landlord to obtain a copy of any approval from Building Control that the conversion met Regulations and to get a surveyor to properly assess/inspect the property upstairs for proper soundproofing/insulation to confirm whether or not it met Building Regulations.
The landlord replied on 20 October 2022 and stated: it understood the frustration. It did not have the authority to insist on soundproofing to be installed. It would speak to the owners and discuss the flooring they have and ways they can soundproof this (rugs/carpets) so as to cause less disturbance.
According to its records, the landlord tried to contact the resident on 26 and 28 October 2022. The resident left a message to call back.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder that “it wanted to bring to her attention about some noise issues affecting the flat below”.
The leaseholder replied on 6 December 2022 that there was no one living in the property and had not been since July 2021. According to its records, the landlord relayed this to the resident who reported she had not heard any noise for the last 6 weeks.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder asking whether the property’s flooring had been correctly insulated. The leaseholder replied that all flooring was laid with underlay, and there were no further requirements for converted housing.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord wrote that its policy stated that it “asked” that residents/leaseholders who had neighbours underneath to have carpet throughout the property due to potential of noise complaints. It asked that flooring was checked. The leaseholder requested the landlord’s consent to let.
On 8, 9, 14, and 15 February 2023, the leaseholder reported loud music “all times of the night” and other allegations, including verbal abuse. N had made several reports to the police due to noise. The leaseholder had experienced excessively loud music which had had a significant impact on them in the past and had experienced this recently when visiting. The police were due to visit regarding safeguarding concerns.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord wrote with a warning letter that it had received several diary sheet entries the previous week of noise nuisance and loud music being played at unsocial hours. This constituted a clear breach of her tenancy agreement which it cited. It would consider issuing legal proceedings if this continued. It invited the resident to discuss this if she wished.
N made further reports on 11 and 25 March 2023 and referred to video evidence.
On or around 13 March 2023, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. Her neighbours were up between 1am – 5am and sometimes later. She reported they were “constantly walking up and down making banging noises”. She believed Mr N carried out construction work from his home. The noise consisted of TV and music, the washing machine, arguments and Mr N’s phone conversations “talking in a language all the time”. Her chandeliers in the front room were “constantly shaking and making a ringing noise” as a result. She was concerned about a risk of the ceiling falling down on her baby. The noise woke the baby. It was affecting her mental health. It felt intrusive. It affected her baby’s sleeping. She could not focus.
2. There was no insulation in the flooring upstairs.
3. On 25 February 2023, police officers attended following a report of loud music being used to drown a baby crying out. These were false allegations. N told the police it was not they who had made the report. The police did not hear music and no one else could hear it. It would class this as a malicious report.
4. She had made previous reports on 16 February 2023 and 2 March 2023.
5. Her visitor had handed a delivery parcel to N who racially abused her. They gave her a “terrible dirty look”. N said “so why you touch it?” (sic) and used a highly offensive racist term. She considered this was evidence that they banged when she played “cultural” music in the daytime, such as reggae and hip hop.
6. On 8 March 2023, she was playing music at a reasonable level in the daytime. There was “insanely loud continuous stamping noise” at numerous times.
7. The NHL called at that time and said she had heard a recording of the resident’s music and it was “very loud” and this was causing the neighbour upstairs distress. The NHL did not explain what the law was. The NHL would issue an “antisocial order” if there was a further complaint.
8. She would turn down her music “somewhat” but she needed to play the music to cover the noise. She had complained about the lack of floor insulation.
9. She spoke to N to object and to say she could play music. She quoted N using a swear word.
10. N should be tolerant of her playing music.
11. On 11 March 2023, she reported that N used further abusive and racist words to her. She would report this to the police.
12. She had submitted “phone video evidence” which she dated 28 January 2023 to 6 and 16 February and early March 2023 and described, including drilling, a washing machine, banging, voices, music at 5 a.m., and N swearing.
The landlord wrote on 14 March 2023 that the “Neighbourhood Housing Lead” (“NHL”) would carry out a visit on 14 March 2023 and open an ASB case. The NHL would provide “a time sheet” and discuss the Noise App.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder and asked for her tenants “not stamp around and hurl abuse to our tenant and their visitors”. It asked the leaseholder to confirm whether the leaseholder had spoken with N.
On 17 March 2023, the leaseholder’s representative wrote that N had been advised strongly not to retaliate by stamping on the floor.
The leaseholder and N continued to make reports in April and in May 2024 including of music, at times between 10 pm-11 pm but generally mid-evening and in the daytime. The videos appeared to have been recorded with N’s door open. The reports included reports of comments by the resident levelled at N’s origins.
There were two Stage 1 complaint responses to the complaint dated 13 March 2023. In an undated letter, the landlord responded as follows:
1. The leaseholder confirmed to the landlord that the property had been vacant from July 2021 to January 2023. There had been no reports from 2012 until October 2022. N moved in on 15 January 2023 when the leaseholder confirmed there was “insulation throughout the property under the floors”, and carpets throughout, except in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. It offered to carry out a noise test. The resident had not responded. The NHL tried to contact her again on 20 January 2023.
3. It referred to the resident’s complaint of 19 October 2022. The landlord had tried to call her on 26 and 28 October 2022.
4. On 8 February 2023, the leaseholder reported that N had made a report of noise nuisance. The resident had not made any reports until after the landlord sent a warning letter on 22 February 2023.
5. On 9 and 14 March 2023, the HNL attended the property to investigate the noise and anti-social behaviour complaints. The resident did not answer the door or submit any evidence to support her allegations.
6. It could not discuss any ongoing cases from other residents due to GDPR.
7. The HNL would “need to respond” to the ASB aspect.
8. It proposed that the HNL visit her property on an agreed date to carry out a noise test and discuss any evidence to support the allegations of ASB. Any racial aggression needed to be reported to the police to investigate.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord wrote a second Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s complaint of 13 March 2023 about ASB consisting of excessive noise, racial remarks, and false “allocations” by N.
2. It had yet to receive any evidence to support her allegations. It invited her to provide any information.
3. The NHL had visited to carry out an ASB review on several occasions.
4. It would open an ASB case for any incidents going forward. It would provide “time sheets” to record noise along with downloading a Noise App.
The landlord has informed this Service that the second Stage 1 response letter was of 14 April 2023 and that it was not clear why there were two responses.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord wrote to N asking them that “no retaliation is made towards (the resident’s) loud music”. It had concluded that the remaining reports were deemed to be household noise. It had tried to contact the resident.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It had received further evidence of diary entries of further loud music being played through a “large” speaker.
2. On 24 May 2023, the NHL “witnessed” the loud music whilst on a telephone call to N. The NHL had made three attempts to call the resident.
3. Music was allowed to be played inside her home but not at the level that has been witnessed and via loudspeakers or boom boxes.
4. She “must” have consideration for her neighbours and others in the community’s wellbeing by not causing distress or nuisance.
5. If any further incidents occurred, it would issue a” final warning” and seek legal advice or proceedings against her “as evidence that is being submitted (was) sufficient and reasonable”.
The resident wrote in an undated letter as follows:
1. She asked the landlord to retract the warning.
2. She denied her music was loud.
3. There was insufficient insulation.
4. She had made further reports of a similar nature. The landlord had taken no action about her reports.
5. She would call the landlord when she experienced noise which would result in calling it “30-50” times a day.
6. N had said to her “I will show you”.
On 25 May 2023, the resident made a further complaint as follows:
1. She asked the landlord to take formal action against N for his harassment and ASB.
2. She asked the landlord to inform the upstairs flat that they needed to input sufficient insulation/soundproofing. This was against the law and the property should not be let out because there was no insulation which was a breach (of Building Regulations). She wanted the manager of the relevant team to contact her.
In an undated letter, it is concluded to have been on or around 31 May 2023, the resident made a further complaint as follows:
1. She did not feel the landlord had addressed the complaint of 13 March 2023 and the issue was continuing.
2. She felt that “people need to be able to feel free and live and express themselves in their homes one way of which could be through music”.
3. She made further reports about incidents dated May 2023 about N similar in nature including that on one occasion, N had said to her “I will show you”. She referred to what she thought to be N’s country of origin.
4. She repeated her points about the upstairs flat not meeting Building Regulations in relation to noise insulation.
On 16 June 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 31 May 2023 (and logged 1 June 2023) as follows:
1. The complaint was that the resident was unhappy with the noise nuisance allegation made against her. The landlord had given her a written warning without investigating the allegation and was given a second warning without having sent a first warning.
2. It had sent warning letters as it had received evidence from multiple neighbours of loud music coming from her property. The NHL had heard the noise herself during a phone call with one of the residents. She had tried to have home visits to discuss the ongoing noise complaints on 9 and 14 March 2023. The reports continued.
3. It had offered to visit to listen to N’s noise. They had been spoken to about their noise and the leaseholders had been questioned about the flooring. The NHL was to arrange a visit on the upstairs property to arrange a noise test. For the sake of fairness, she wanted to attend the resident’s home to hear the noise for herself and then take further action.
On 30 June 2023. the resident wrote as follows:
1. She referred to her complaints of 19 October 2022, 13 March 2023, and 23 April 2023 (sic). They had referred to two incidents of 25 May 2023, and 29 June 2023. She sent 40 videos of evidence on 22 and 23 April 2023. More emails were to follow. Another 60 videos of evidence were sent around 12 June 2023. They were timed and dated.
2. She had emailed on 10 January 2023 about Buildings Regulations She cited the Building Regulations Approved Document E about soundproofing standards for new homes and those undergoing refurbishment or conversion from a different use, the requirement for building control approval. She repeated her request the landlord tell the leaseholder not to let out the property and to obtain the building control approval.
The resident sent an undated “5th complaint”.
1. She did not want the HNL to attend her home. She asked what the noise test would achieve. She had sent 100 recordings. There was no evidence for the second warning. She did not speak to the NHL. She had turned up her music to drown out N’s. She requested the policies. The landlord was ignoring her diary entries. She wanted the landlord to take action against N and to tell him she was entitled to play music in the day. She asked what action the landlord would take about breaching Building Regulations.
On 4 July 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She referred to a response attached to her email. It was not clear what this referred to.
On 18 July 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The noise evidence appeared to be “mainly general household”.
2. N “were also been”(sic) spoken to.
3. The landlord had sent warning letters as it had received evidence from “multiple” neighbours of loud music coming from her property. The NHL had also witnessed the noise on one occasion. As it continued to receive further reports, a second warning letter was issued. They were issued “correctly” so would not be withdrawn.
On 18 July 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to “Stage 3”.
1. She had sent in 100 videos, showing “extremely loud music” being played by the neighbours upstairs at various times of the day and early hours of the morning, “excessively stamping”, N shouting at her and slamming the door in her face and playing two different types of music at the same time extremely loudly. N had taunted her shouting “I can’t hear you, where are you, I will find you”. She asked the landlord to review the footage sent in May, June and July.
2. She disputed that other neighbours had complained as the property was a detached property. She only played “once in a while”.
3. She disputed that the NHL heard the music as she had told her she could not hear it. She wanted to know time and dates. The only occasion was over the phone which could not be adequately judged.
4. She was not able to call the NHL outside office hours and the NHL did not answer the phone. She requested the landlord’s policies. She played music to drown out N’s including the day. This was biased, unfair, and unjust.
5. The EHO and the police had referred her to the landlord.
6. She asked for the details of an officer who was able to come out when the neighbours were playing loud music or drilling, not the “9-5” team.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in relation to a neighbour and noise nuisance

The Ombudsman does not make findings as to a party’s allegations but considers whether the landlord’s responses to a resident’s reports are reasonable and proportionate in the context of its obligations, powers and good practice.
There was no evidence that the resident escalated the complaint of 19 October 2022 but the complaint is noted by way of context. The further complaints were similar in nature and therefore they have been investigated as if they were one single complaint. In any event, given the resident felt the landlord had not addressed her complaint of 13 March 2023 satisfactorily, her further complaints were, essentially, an escalation of her previous complaints.
The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to her reports about N’s conduct, the tenants of the leaseholders of the flat above. There was no landlord and tenant relationship between N and the landlord, therefore the landlord would have been unable to take any direct action against N to enforce any tenancy obligations.
The Ombudsman has not seen the lease between the landlord and the leaseholder or that between the leaseholder and N. It would be usual, however, that leaseholders would have been subject to a clause not to cause nuisance which may or may not extend to a leaseholder’s liability for its tenants. The landlord has acknowledged that possibility and that of taking legal action however, it would require good evidence.
Given the limitations of what the landlord could or could not do, it was reasonable that it, nevertheless, asked N not to make deliberate noise targeted at the resident, namely “retaliation”.
It was reasonable and appropriate that it raised the resident’s reports with its leaseholder. It stated an intention to open an ASB case, it offered to attend the properties in order to investigate the resident’s allegations and carry out a “noise test” and suggested the use of a Noise App. It invited the resident to provide evidence to support her allegations.
However, it did not explain to the resident what evidence it required, there was no evidence that it reviewed the resident’s recordings of May, June, and July 2022 or consider carrying out a risk assessment, in line with its policy. It did not explain that it did not have a landlord and tenant relationship with N and it was therefore limited to action through the leaseholder. There was no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case or considered non-legal remedies, such as offering mediation.
While it raised the resident’s reports of racist comments with the leaseholder, it did not indicate that these were serious allegations. However, the landlord did not respond to either party’s allegations of racism.
It is noted that the resident did not engage with the offer of a noise test and did not engage with the NHL regarding meetings. This was also a function that the same NHL was addressing both the resident’s and the leaseholder’s/N’s reports. The Ombudsman appreciates the staffing constraints faced by social landlords. However, the conflict of the NHL’s roles was problematic as the resident did not feel she was being treated fairly.
The resident asked the landlord to raise the issue of floor insulation with the leaseholder and to request a copy of the Building Control approval. She asked it to tell the leaseholder to stop letting the property out. There was no evidence that the let was unlawful and that there was any requirements or, if so, any breach of Building Regulations in any refurbishment works carried out by the leaseholder, or that the landlord had grounds or power to prohibit a let.
However, if building consent had been required for the works upstairs, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) recognises that “in some circumstance, the minimum may not be adequate to prevent indoor noise pollution. Other sources of information include the World Health Organization”.
The landlord reasonably made enquiries of the leaseholder about their flooring. However, there was no evidence that it inspected the property for itself or considered requesting noise mitigation measures. It did not consult with its leaseholder’s team to check on its permission for the works to take place or to satisfy itself as to the position regarding Building Control, if it had not done so already.
The Ombudsman notes that the leaseholder and N had made reports about the resident. There had been a history of reports about her music. The resident’s reports themselves made a number of references to N’s origins. The landlord took the view early on that the resident was making noise reports in retaliation for N making complaints about her. It also noted that the resident had made a complaint about daily noise in October 2022 when the property was empty. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have retained an objective and neutral stance. While the landlord deemed N’s noise to be household noise, it did not address the resident’s account of her video evidence, it did not explain what evidence it required. It did not explain what was and what was not ASB. It did not make clear the difference between noise issues and ASB.
The landlord did not consider whether L’s property was subject to selective licensing as an HMO by the local authority in which the property was situated. A licence may include a condition that the leaseholder should effectively address ASB by not ignoring or failing to take action if he has received complaints of ASB regarding his tenants. While this is a matter for the local authority and the landlord had no standing to enforce this, it was an issue it could have considering raising with the leaseholder, if relevant. The impact of not having done so is too speculative for the Ombudsman to make a finding on but will make a recommendation in that regard.
The other options open to it was to contact the Environmental Health Officer of the local authority. The local authority referred both N and the resident to their respective landlords. The local authority would only deal with “statutory nuisances”, which is a high bar. However, the landlord could have considered advocating as to whether there was a statutory nuisance.
Given the limits the landlord faced in taking action, that the resident did not engage with the landlord as invited, and the conclusion that many of the reports were of household noise, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the impact was so significant. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took such steps as it was able to, even within its powers.

The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s letters of warning to the resident

The resident’s obligation was not to cause nuisance to anyone in the local area. The landlord was entitled to make a judgment as to whether to send a warning letter as long as there had been credible reports of excessive noise. While it should not be prejudiced by the history of this case, it was also entitled to take it into account when weighing up the evidence. The landlord considered that loud music constituted nuisance if it was persistent. This was not limited to the time of day. It is noted that N’s video evidence appeared to have been taken with the door open and during the day. However, music was audible. The resident herself acknowledged on occasions that she had turned the music up to “drown” noise that she reported from N’s property, that it was for N to be more tolerant, and the NHL had heard the resident’s music for herself. The landlord was entitled to conclude the music would have to have of a certain volume for her to be able to hear it over the telephone.
The Ombudsman understands that the treatment would have felt unfair to the resident, on the basis that it acted on N’s reports but not the resident’s. However, the landlord was not entitled to send warnings letters directly to N as they were not its tenant.
The landlord acted reasonably in offering to carry out a noise test in both properties. It also offered to discuss the reports with the resident.
The resident reported that she had not received the first warning, however she referred to it in her complaint of 13 March 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of reports by other neighbours. However, on the second occasion, the NHL heard the music over the phone, so it was not relying on N’s report alone.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was entitled to send warning letters to the resident on the basis of the volume of the music. However, the Ombudsman considers it should seek more objective evidence, were it to take further steps.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord, in its Stage 1 response, referred to it having called the resident back after the complaint in October 2022, implying the resident did not engage. The evidence showed that the resident tried to call the landlord back. This was unreasonable not to take into account of the full facts.
The complaint handling was confusing as there were two Stage 1 responses to the complaint of 13 March 2023. The second response was delayed, albeit by a short period as was the Stage 2 response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have considered treating the resident email of 31 May 2023 as an escalation. The resident had expressly said she was unhappy with the way the landlord had responded to her complaint.
The first Stage 1 response stated that the HNL would respond to the ASB aspect. It was not clear what this meant but there was no evidence that she did so. A complaint response should be complete in itself, in any event.
The report has highlighted that there was evidence of some administrative confusion within the complaints process. While there was no overall evidence of significant impact on the resident, the landlord should take note of these failings and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s letters of warning to the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord did not have a tenant landlord relationship with the neighbour and there was evidence that the resident engagement with the landlord was limited, the landlord had not demonstrated that it had sufficiently addressed the resident’s recordings or opened an ASB or noise nuisance case.
The landlord acted reasonably in serving warnings on the resident as there was sufficient evidence of music being played loudly.
There were a number of failings and confusion in the landlord’s complaints handling but the Ombudsman did not find evidence of significant impact on the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the sum of £350 to the resident in relation to response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
2. If the resident has continued to make further reports, within 4 weeks of this report, a suitably qualified staff member of the landlords should inspect the property upstairs and consider whether there are any steps it should ask the leaseholder to take in order to mitigate noise transference and to ensure the flooring complies with its policy. The landlord should provide to this Service a report of the inspection and an action plan with any steps and reasonable timescale it intends to take.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that its staff consider the recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman’s report on Noise by providing training and written guidance. Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and its follow-up Noise-follow-up-report.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. The landlord should ascertain whether the upstairs property was licensed as an HMO and the terms of any licence.
3. The complaints lead of the landlord should note the findings in this report and issue appropriate guidance to the complaints team in order to address these and ensure they are avoided.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.