Bristol City Council (202233143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233143

Bristol City Council

27 August 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 complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request to move by means of a mutual exchange.

Background

The property is a two-bedroom flat situated on the second floor. The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy started on 9 June 2014.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2023. She stated that the neighbour below her had been playing loud music most weekends during unsociable hours as well as slamming doors and shouting. The resident added that she understood there was no soundproofing in the building and, whilst she had previously spoken to the neighbour who had apologised, she felt the recent incidents were on purpose. The landlord informed the resident to complete a noise diary and to return it as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 February 2023 in which she enclosed a completed noise diary. She then emailed the landlord on 9 February 2023 to explain that as soon as she had entered her property she had encountered loud music once again. She explained she had returned the 14-day diary and she wanted to know what was being done by the landlord.
The resident also emailed her local councillor on 9 February 2023. The resident provided some additional background to her complaint. She set out that she had been living at the property for over 10 years and she had issues with a previous tenant in the flat below her, who had been eventually evicted by the landlord. The next tenant of that property, which had been a ‘sensitive let’ had played music occasionally when they first came in but it was not late at night. However the resident added that the situation had now changed and she was experiencing loud music every morning from the flat below her. This had been happening for several months and it had been gradually getting worse, affecting her wellbeing and mental health and she was unable to sleep due to the noise.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023. It explained that it had contacted the resident’s neighbour with a first warning. It asked the resident to monitor the noise for 14 days and provide it with an update. The landlord’s correspondence to the resident explained that if it did not receive a response within four weeks the matter would be closed.
The resident’s mother sent the landlord an email on 12 February 2023. She explained that, in addition to the loud music which had been present since 10 February 2023, when she had been at the flat there was also a smell of cannabis coming from the downstairs flat up into her daughter’s flat. She asked the landlord to intervene to help get her daughter out of this situation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2023 setting out she was still experiencing “issues with downstairs neighbour”. She added that it “seems like they have sort of high frequency device, playing through certain parts of the flat”. She asked to be contacted by the landlord as she has been informed this was not a police matter and she confirmed that she had a recording of loud music being played. Whilst she noted that the landlord had asked her to complete a diary about the ASB she explained she had already sent it two such sheets in the prior two weeks.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2023 to explain that it had receipt of her diary and it had written to the resident’s downstairs neighbour to advise them of the complaint. It asked the resident to monitor the noise for a period of two weeks and to let it know if there was any improvement in terms of the noise. The landlord explained that if the noise continued then the resident would be provided with access to the noise app to allow her to make recordings of the noise.
The resident’s daughter sent the landlord an email on 19 February 2023. This had followed an email from the resident to the landlord from the previous day in terms of the noise from the neighbour which she added she had recorded. The resident added that she was being “driven out my own home” due to the actions of the neighbour. The resident’s daughter explained that her mother had contacted her whilst she was away from the property to explain that she did not feel safe in it due to the actions of the neighbour below her. The resident’s daughter added that she had been present when the issue of the ASB by previous tenant had impacted her mother and she questioned why her mother had found herself in “this situation yet again”. She asked the landlord to investigate the matter as a priority due to the resident’s concerns about safety.
The landlord’s internal communication show that the resident’s housing officer had attempted to call the resident on 22 February 2023 but that this had been unsuccessful. Following a call with the resident, the landlord’s notes from 24 February 2023 noted that it understood most of the resident’s issues concerned the loud music coming from the flat below. In terms of the cannabis use the landlord had set out it had “given her the appropriate advice regarding contacting the Police about that”. The housing officer had also offered to speak to the neighbour which the resident had declined, saying she would speak to the neighbour to try to resolve the issues in the first instance.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 February 2023 to explain she had attempted to speak to the neighbour but had been unsuccessful. The resident added that in addition to the smell of cannabis there was also the smell of cocaine from the flat below her. She added that she had asked her family in terms of the money she owed but that they could not help. This had been as she was seeking a mutual exchange but she needed to clear her rent arrears before the landlord would give an agreement to the mutual exchange. She asked what her options going forward were. The resident sent the landlord several further emails on a daily basis about the smell of drugs coming into the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2023 to explain that she should contact the police in relation to the cannabis as they could investigate the matter. It confirmed that it had written to the neighbour on that day and it provided details of the noise app which it explained would allow the resident to make recordings and send them direct to the landlord.
The resident sent the landlord an email on the same day to confirm she had already downloaded the noise app and she had sent it two recordings. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed that music was “clearly audible”.
The resident’s daughter sent the landlord an email on 1 March 2023. She explained that her mum was staying with a friend and did not want to return until the issue had been resolved. She added she was staying in the property and there was nothing to report, no loud music or smell of cannabis. The resident’s daughter stated that, based on this, the neighbours were deliberately targeting her mother when she was there and this issue had affected her mental and physical wellbeing. The daughter added her mother had been away from the flat three times that month, for a total of 10 days to get away from the situation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 March 2023 to confirm receipt of her correspondence. It explained that it had spoken to its ASB team and the Estate Management team about the case. The ASB team had confirmed that it needed evidence including date and time of the incidents. It recommended:
1. That the resident liaised with the neighbourhood enforcement team and allowed it to contact the neighbour.
2. The need for a comprehensive diary. Whilst it understood the resident had been keeping details of incidents it needed this to be in a more formal way. It added it would send a diary template for the resident to complete.
3. In terms of the issue of the drug use that the resident reported these incidents to the police either online or by calling the non emergency number for them. The police would then follow up on the matter and it would strengthen the case of ASB if the police had to act.
4. In relation to the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation, whilst it could not make the final decision on whether the resident could move, it encouraged the resident “to discuss your rent account with your housing officer”. It added that the resident “should make a formal request for a discretionary decision to be made so you can start bidding on our home choice website”. It added it could write a statement of support in the event the housing officer was willing to pursue this option. However it added “that in most circumstances we wouldn’t usually move a tenant when there are arrears on the account without a strong evidence base for doing so”.
The resident continued to send further emails to the landlord between 10 and 15 March 2023. Whilst she did not understand the need to complete a third diary this was submitted to the landlord on 15 March 2023. This covered the period from 27 February to 13 March 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2023. It noted the resident had stated in her diary that she was experiencing a constant noise. It asked her to explain this in more detail. It also explained the diary contained several incidents of cannabis smell. Whilst it noted the issue was being reported to the police it set out the neighbourhood enforcement team could not deal with this type of issue. The resident replied on the same day to explain that the noise was either an amp which had “been set to a continuous drum and bass sounding”. She added she had reported the cannabis to the police by calling 101. She added she would try to record the sound although she enquired as to whether the landlord had any equipment to “capture this sound”.
The landlord’s internal communications from 20 March 2023 show that it spoke to the resident’s neighbour about the allegations being made by the resident. It asked the neighbour for her comments.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2023 to explain that as she had entered the property “the smoke and smell of cannabis was potent again”. She added she had reported this to the police.
The landlord made a visit to the property on 30 March 2023. Its notes of this visit stated:
1. It had sat in the property for 30 minutes and that there was low level talking from the downstairs property.
2. The resident had explained her employer had currently put her up in a hotel but this could not continue. Whilst the resident said she could deal with the noise she could not put up with the intimidation. She said the children of the downstairs occupant had chased her out of the garden and that “a male in a hoody was hanging around the property by the bushes, she feels that he was asked by the neighbours to cause her distress”. As a result she felt she could not stay in the property as it was unsafe.
3. It understood the resident had completed diaries and would complete a further one when she moved back into the property over the next week. The landlord proposed a visit to the neighbour and the possibility of exploring a good neighbour agreement which the resident accepted.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 April 2023 asking if the housing officer had visited the neighbour and asked them to sign the good neighbour agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 April 2023. This was in relation to a complaint made about the resident in terms of intimidation and harassment. The landlord explained that it wanted to meet the resident on 26 April 2023 to go through a good neighbour agreement with her.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord between 18 and 21 April 2023 concerning the noise from the flat below. The resident added she had sent a recording to the landlord of the noise. The email of 21 April 2023 explained that she had been given an appointment with the mental health team set for 4 May 2023 and that she was staying at her friend’s house due to the harassment and targeting from the neighbours below her.
The resident’s daughter sent an email on 23 April 2023 in which she explained the tenant in the flat below had been playing music during the early hours which had disturbed them. She added they had recorded the sounds on the noise app. She added there was also a strong smell of cannabis which they had reported to the police.
The resident sent in a completed ASB diary for the period from 23 April 2023 to 12 May 2023.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 29 April 2023 noted that it had listened to the noise app recordings made between 17 February 2023 and 28 April 2023. It added that there were five incidents of music over the period and that all of them occurred during daylight hours. Whilst it set out the incidents listened to indicated “loud and intrusive music”, the five instances over a two-and-a-half-month period were not sufficient for it to issue a community protection warning. It added it understood the resident had not been staying at the property for some period and this may have impacted the number of recordings which had been made. It therefore felt further monitoring was required.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 May 2023. This was in response to the resident setting out that she felt let down as she wanted to move but no one had been updating her about her situation. The landlord’s notes from the conversation set out it provided details of support services to the resident who had advised it of her mental health status for which she wanted help. The resident advised she felt she was still “being passed back and forward between agencies” and that the police had informed her that the housing team needed to deal with the cannabis which the housing team had disputed. The resident had also reported high-pitched noises at the flat and she was made to feel like she was making this up as it was not picked up on the recording equipment.
The landlord explained during its call with the resident that:
1. It could not take the matter further without supporting evidence.
2. It had spoken to the relevant area concerning her debt and the postponed possession order. The rents team would not agree to waive the arrears to allow her to exchange. The landlord added the rents team would call her to advise her of her options.
3. Whilst it understood the flat below had been a sensitive let following the eviction of the previous tenant this was no guarantee there would be no issues. This was as situations changed over time.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 11 May 2023 to make a complaint. She explained that she had been trying to swap homes because of the ASB from her neighbour in the flat beneath her. She explained that her request to swap homes had been refused by the landlord because of rent arrears and due to a court order dated 2020. She added that her complaint was over this decision to refuse to allow the mutual exchange as she had been paying the full rent as well as arrears for over two years. She asked the landlord to investigate the decision as she set out that she was suffering from mental illness.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 May 2023 following reviewing the noise app recordings and having looked at the diaries provided by the resident. It asked her to call it when the noise was happening. It added it had a service between 9am and 4pm Monday to Friday and it offered a weekend service on a fortnightly basis on Fridays and Saturdays between 5pm and 1am. It provided the resident with a contact number for her to call, when it explained “an Officer will endeavour to attend when you call”. The resident was also advised not to make recordings in the kitchen, although the landlord did not explain why. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day to explain that all recordings were from the kitchen.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023. It noted that the resident wished to move because of the ASB. The landlord explained:
1. The resident was behind in her rent and as a result, in line with the possession action, it could not allow a mutual exchange to take place. It added that the resident was paying less than the payment plan noted by the court order which had stated that the resident needed to pay the full rent plus £60 towards the arrears each month.
2. It agreed to put noise recording equipment into the property to record the noise levels.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023 and again on 18 May 2023. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident stated:
1. The neighbour had been there for five years and the issues had been “progressively worse” over the previous six months. The resident referred to the issues being both loud music and cannabis smoke.
2. She had been paying away her debt over the past two years as well as the rent. She added she had not received any communication before April 2023, when the rent went up to explain that she had not been paying enough.
3. She understood from the landlord and the police that neither body was taking action against the neighbour for the loud music or the cannabis and this was affecting her mental health.
4. She wanted the case revalued based on mental health and the fact that she felt suicidal. She added that her daughter who had been living with her was moving to rented accommodation as she could no longer stay at the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation on 16 May 2023.It explained that it would provide its response by 14 June 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023. It stated that the property was poorly insulated and this could lead to noise issues. It set out that needed clear evidence in order to escalate the matter to court. Whilst the landlord’s email had looked at the resident’s complaint it was not a stage 2 response and no referral rights were provided by it.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 May 2023 in relation to her request for a mutual exchange. It explained that the resident had an outstanding balance of £3,242.35. It explained that once the account was cleared the resident could apply for the mutual exchange to be reconsidered.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. It explained:
1. In terms of the mutual exchange policy that the resident was behind in her payments as set out in the court order and there was an amount outstanding at the time.
2. In terms of the reported cannabis smoking by the neighbour there was little that it could do. It added that the issue was a police matter and that it could only act following a successful prosecution by the police.
3. In terms of the noise recordings it had noted the resident had made recordings via the noise app with the last recording being on 12 May 2023. It added the neighbourhood enforcement team had reviewed the eight recordings made by the resident and it had come to the decision that the noises did not amount to nuisance.
4. No calls had been made to the service which the landlord had referred to the resident on 15 May 2023. It added that it needed evidence to back up what the resident was saying in terms of the noise and ASB and this had not been provided by the resident.
5. It was providing the court order in relation to the resident’s comments that no communication had been provided to her to say she was not paying enough rent until April 2023. The court order has set out she needed to pay an extra £60 per month however the resident had only been paying £5 a month towards the arrears.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 14 June 2023. She set out:
1. The landlord had explained to her that recording equipment would be installed and she would be contacted however this had not happened.
2. She was not advised by the landlord to contact the out of hours number.
3. She was aware of the court order and was under the belief that she was paying enough. She had not received anything prior to April 2023 to set out that she was not paying enough. This had included a lump sum of £2,000 she had paid to the landlord which had been left to her by her late brother. She asked if this was sufficient for her to be able to complete on the mutual exchange.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2023 following her application to complete a mutual exchange. The correspondence which was in the form of a generic template set out the application was being considered by it and that tenancy checks would be done. It noted that no monies in terms of rent needed to be outstanding and that the resident’s rent arrears were £1,292.61 and on top of this there was £325 outstanding in term of the court costs and £44.24 for insurance. The letter from the landlord explained that it needed the gas and electricity certificates as well as a surveyor’s inspection and that the process could still take four to six weeks after it had received all the necessary documents.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2023. It explained that in relation to the loud music, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the matter.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord has confirmed that the resident moved via a mutual exchange in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.

Whilst the Ombudsman has provided a summary of events, this is not an exhaustive account of all the communication between the resident and the landlord over the issue. It instead covers the communication which the Ombudsman considers is relevant to this investigation.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
Following the resident having contacted the landlord in conjunction with the issue of the noise and subsequently the smell and use of cannabis, the landlord advised the resident to refer the issue of the cannabis use to the police. It explained the reasons for this as it stated it could not deal with the issue until after a successful prosecution had been sought by the police. This was reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy which set out that where ASB was being carried out due to use of drugs or alcohol that the landlord’s estate management and safer communities team would work in partnership with the police. Whilst this advice may have been frustrating for the resident to hear, the landlord needed independent evidence of any alleged drug use in order to be able to take any action against the neighbour and therefore required input from the police to progress this.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out that, prior to pursuing formal action, the landlord would “first try to help resolve conflict informally”. The policy added that this meant “encouraging, empowering, and supporting individuals and communities, where appropriate, to resolve issues themselves. We will work with reporters and those identified as causing ASB to assess and address support needs, but this will not prevent enforcement action being taken against perpetrators of ASB”.
The landlord’s ASB policy categorises noise nuisance as a type of ASB nuisance. It adds that the neighbourhood enforcement team would work in partnership with the estate management team for this matter. The policy added that issues not classed as ASB by it included the noise of DIY being carried out at a reasonable time of day as well as everyday noises including opening and closing of doors.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out the principles which undermined its approach. These principles included:
1. Partnership approach.
2. Victim centred approach.
3. Evidence based approach.
4. Trauma informed practice.
In terms of the victim centred approach the ASB policy set out that the landlord would “take the victim’s view into consideration when deciding what actions to take”. The evidence-based approach set out that it “must be able to evidence that ASB is occurring before we can be able to deal with it. Where we are unable to evidence that ASB is occurring we will work with victims to enable and empower them to build evidence whilst ensuring they are supported with the impact that any ASB maybe having on them”.
The ASB policy added that incident diaries were used “to gather more information [and to] gain a clear picture of exactly what is going on. It helps us better understand the frequency/persistent of the issues, assess risks, and build a body of evidence to support possible future interventions”.
The landlord instructed the resident to complete an ASB diary in which she recorded details of the ASB she was experiencing. This was an appropriate step for it to take as it helped the landlord understand the nature/frequency of the ASB which the resident had been experiencing. The resident provided the landlord initially with two completed diaries, which covered the initial reporting up to 8 February 2023 and from 27 February 2023 to 13 March 2023. Upon receiving the initial diary on 8 February 2023 the landlord issued a letter to the resident’s neighbour advising her that a complaint had been made about loud music. The letter set out that the landlord would investigate the complaint and it advised her that if it received evidence of the activity than it could imply a breaching of the tenancy agreement and could put the property at risk. This was appropriate action given the nature of the resident’s concerns. Whilst it put the neighbour on alert about the complaint, the letter did convey that the landlord would investigate the noise nuisance.
In addition to writing to the neighbour the landlord also wrote to the resident on 8 February 2023 to make her aware of the action it had taken. This letter informed the resident that she needed to monitor the source of the noise for a further 14 days and to provide it with an update. The letter also informed the resident of the option of mediation to settle the dispute. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy in which it explained that the resolution to the matter did not always rest with the landlord having to take formal action.
Following the resident providing further correspondence setting out that the issue of the loud music was still outstanding, even after the landlord had issued the first warning letter, it sent the neighbour another letter at the end of February 2023 about the matter in which it asked the neighbour to get in touch with it. This was appropriate as it gave the landlord the opportunity to understand the neighbour’s perspective about the matter. The landlord’s correspondence show that it did speak to the neighbour about the issues and that the neighbour had disputed the resident’s version of events. Given the conflicting accounts of events and the lack of independent evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to send in further evidence in the form of a further diary and/or recordings made by the noise app.
The resident explained that the landlord had informed her that it would install sound recording equipment in the property and it had failed to contact her to do so. Although this option had been mentioned by the landlord in its stage 1 response in the middle of May 2023, by this time the resident had already sent it several noise app recordings which the landlord had reviewed. Having done so, whilst it had accepted there was loud music on the recordings it had stated that the timing of the recordings had not been during the night or in the early hours but rather during the day. As a result it had not determined that the noise reported by the resident would fall within the category of being noise nuisance and therefore ASB. As a result the landlord did not proceed with the installation of sound equipment following the stage 1 response.
The landlord ought to have explained clearly to the resident the reasons why it was not proceeding with the installation of sound equipment at the property. Whilst this was a failing on the part of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation in relation to this, its inability to do so did not cause any material impact on the resident as the landlord was still willing to review the noise app recordings which the resident had provided. It also understood at the time that the resident was staying away from the property. As the resident was not present for periods of time, there would not have been anyone present to make any recordings of noise should the issue of ASB have arisen.
The resident sent the landlord many emails about the loud music and the issue of the cannabis smoking, often emailing it on a daily basis. Whilst the landlord did not always respond to each email from the resident it did send her regular acknowledgments and provide her with advice on what she should do next. In terms of the cannabis this involved the resident being advised to report the matter to the police. This was reasonable for it to do and the landlord’s records show that it did speak to the resident on a few occasions during the period that she had contacted it. The landlord during its contact with the resident offered to act as a mediator and to visit the neighbour to discuss the matter. This was in keeping with the landlord’s responsibilities under the ASB policy.
There is no evidence that the landlord had closed the resident’s ASB complaint at any time until it had concluded in July 2023, following its stage 2 response that the resident had not provided sufficient evidence to proceed with the matter any further.
Whilst the resident felt that she was often waiting on the landlord to act on the matter and she had to send it several diaries and noise recordings purporting to support her ASB noise complaint, the contemporaneous evidence shows that the landlord was continuing to review the matter. It explained the importance of evidence to back up what the resident had told it and, as the noise recordings up to 12 May 2023 had not supported her allegations, it had provided the resident with a contact number in an email on 15 May 2023 which the resident could call so that it could try to observe first hand the issues which the resident had faced. The resident did not use this option.
The evidence provided show that the landlord continued to review the matter regularly from February 2023 when it was first contacted about the matter to see whether or not the resident had suffered any ASB from her neighbour. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that the situation caused distress and upset to the resident, overall the landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate to the evidence available to it. There was no evidence of maladministration by it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move by means of a mutual exchange.

The resident informed the landlord on several occasions in 2023 that she wished to move from the property via a mutual exchange. This had included an occasion in April 2023 when she had applied and then cancelled on the same day as the other party had not been responding to her. She mentioned there were other properties which she was seeing at that time.
In terms of requesting a move, the landlord’s mutual exchange policy set out the criteria under which consent would be provided by it to a swap. The policy explained that conditional consent could be given if there were breaches of tenancy conditions which could be “remedied within a given time specified by Housing Delivery which is currently 30 calendar days”. The policy also stated that if the resident had rent arrears that consent would be granted if they “are cleared within the given period prior to exchange”. In other words that, at the time of any exchange, the resident was no longer in arrears.
The resident has accepted that her rent account was in arrears. However she had stated the landlord that it had not informed her prior to April 2023 of the degree of the arrears. In terms of the resident’s account had she been unclear on the amounts that she needed to pay she could have checked her balance.
The landlord, when asked by the resident about the possibility of her moving, did refer her to the arrears on the account. It also confirmed to the resident that the rent team were the team which could decide on the matter. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that on several occasions the rent team was asked by the resident about allowing her to move whilst she still had arrears which included court costs. On each occasion the rent team had confirmed that the exchange application was not possible due to the resident’s arrears. Despite saying this, the landlord did clearly inform the resident that, should the arrears be cleared, it could reconsider her application. This was entirely reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. Given this there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to undertake a mutual exchange.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord indicated at one point that the property was ‘poorly insulated’ and that this may lead to noise issues. As this property is part of a block of flats, it is recommended that the landlord considers any planned improvement works it can do in the future to reduce noise transference between the flats. This could form part of any future planned programme of major improvement works.