Hyde Housing Association Limited (202124025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124025

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Scope of Investigation

It is noted that the complaint was raised with the landlord by the resident and 2 other residents as a group complaint and evidence has been provided to suggest the residents view is shared by 2 others. Whilst these comments have been noted, this aspect of the complaint cannot be investigated due to third party data concerns and the fact the resident is not, in a formal capacity recognised by this Service, acting as a representative for any other party. The resident may wish to advise the other residents to submit their own complaints with the landlord to allow it to investigate their individual concerns fully. For clarity this is not a group complaint, this investigation will focus on the individual concerns and communication raised by the resident to the landlord.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 2 June 2014. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat with communal gardens and parking facilities. The property is situated in an over 50’s block of 10 flats, the alleged perpetrators flat is directly above the residents and identical in layout. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlords ASB Policy Statement sets out its approach to tackling ASB, through prevention, enforcement and support. It uses the following definition of ASB, as stated in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
This policy also states the landlord “believes that everyone has the right to live the way they want as long as it does not unlawfully spoil the quality of life of others. This means being tolerant, accepting and respecting the needs and choices of other people. Not all reports relating to behaviour that impacts on an individual can be deemed antisocial behaviour. It is important to show tolerance and be respectful of differing lifestyles and circumstances”.
The landlords ASB Policy Statement says the following are examples of reports that are not included in its policy definition of ASB:
1. Sounds of normal day to day living that we can hear such as opening and closing of doors.
2. Clashes of lifestyle.
3. In these instances it says it will “manage resident expectations regarding behaviour that is not defined as ASB by offering advice and guidance and where appropriate will expect residents to resolve the issues themselves”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaint process, with the additional option of an informal complaint rather than a formal complaint investigation. It defines an informal complaint as “If a customer simply wants us to put things right with a minimum of fuss when it is clear what has gone wrong, they may choose the informal complaint route. The cases that can be considered under this option should be quick to resolve and require no investigation”.
It will acknowledge a stage 1 formal complaint within two working days and aim to respond within ten working days. It will respond to stage 2 formal complaints within 20 working days.
The landlords complaint policy also states there are circumstances when it wouldn’t escalate a complaint to stage 2. It describes this situation as where its decision is based on published service standards and policy.

Summary of events

Evidence was provided which showed the resident raised concerns in November 2020 about the noise levels from a potential future tenant when the flat above became vacant. He made the landlord aware he was “very anxious about what was to come”. Evidence was also provided to show there was a previous issue with the communal front door slamming and disturbing the resident.
The resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 17 March 2021, he described the noise nuisance as banging and constant shouting. Following an incident where the resident had approached the alleged perpetrator and asked the noise to be kept down, the alleged perpetrator had left the resident feeling “threatened” and “unsafe” in his property. The landlord confirmed on the same day, via email that an ASB case had been opened.
The resident also contacted the local authority noise team on 18 March 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 March 2021 via the telephone and advised it would write to the alleged perpetrator. The landlord noted from this call that the resident advised it that the alleged perpetrator suffered from mental health issues and was evicted from their last property for violence.
The resident stated in an email to the landlord on 25 March 2021 that he had to wait for the resident above to go to bed before he can go to bed. He described the alleged perpetrator as having no “neighbourly consideration”. The resident also detailed that the alleged perpetrator has “groups of male visitors round drinking” therefore the noise gets louder and reaches “intimidation level”.
The landlord sent the alleged perpetrator an initial investigation letter on 30 March 2021 detailing the allegations made, these included:
1. Noise nuisance which was causing “major distress” to others.
2. “Constant banging and shouting vigorously in the property”.
3. Aggressive and threatening behaviour.
The resident submitted his first noise dairy sheet to the landlord on 6 April 2021 via email, the ASB could be summarised as loud shouting, banging and aggressive behaviour. In this email the resident advised the noise was having an impact on his health and he had given up his freelance work which he did from home due to the noise. The alleged perpetrator denied the allegations to the landlord on 13 April 2021, they advised the shouting was due to the bad phone signal in the block and decorating after moving in, they also confirmed no carpet was down.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 April 2021 about his ASB case. This letter said the resident had raised concerns about response times and communication with the landlord. It apologised for any upset and frustrations experienced due to ongoing issues at the property. The landlord continued to confirm:
1. An ASB case was opened on the 17 March 2021.
2. The landlord telephoned the resident on 30 March 2021 and confirmed the alleged perpetrator would be written to.
3. ASB case reviews would be scheduled every 4 weeks.
4. The officer assigned to the residents case was on annual leave for a period of time, the landlord apologised if the resident was not informed of this.
5. The landlord confirmed the emails sent to the officer had been added to the case file.
6. It also confirmed it had a 10-working day response time to reply to emails.
7. The block the resident lived in was not a block for persons aged 50 or over.
8. It had no concern about the alleged perpetrators tenancy history prior to letting.
9. It would continue to work with all necessary partner agencies as part of its investigations into the ASB.
The local authority noise team provided the noise app to the resident on 29 April 2021.
The landlord visited the resident on 4 May 2021 and, according to the resident, assured him that the situation would not be allowed to continue. The resident was also visited by a mediator on this day and agreed to shuttle mediation.
On 7 June 2021, the resident submitted an application for a community trigger, which was subsequently refused on 15 June 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 June 2021. This was a joint complaint with 2 other neighbours who had open ASB cases with the landlord against the same alleged perpetrator. Within this complaint the resident:
1. Said the block was previously a quiet block for older people and people living with ill health and disabilities.
2. Said he and other residents had been assured by an officer of the landlord that the situation would not be allowed to continue.
3. Said he had lived there for 7 years and never experienced such “excessive levels of noise” and “threatening behaviour from another tenant” prior to the alleged perpetrator moving in.
4. Had requested sound insulation, carpets and underlay to the alleged perpetrators property, the landlord installed carpets and underlay on 8 June 2021 but no sound or door insulation. The installation of carpet had made little impact on the noise level, specifically the “door slamming, swearing and shouting”.
5. Said despite the landlord indicating to an MP that noise equipment would be sourced it was yet to be installed.
6. Said face to face mediation had been agreed to, so long as the alleged perpetrator remained respectful and reasonable.
7. Said the repairs of internal and external communal lighting were not being addressed which made him feel at risk and anxious about his safety.
8. Said when he followed the landlords procedure and approached the alleged perpetrator to ask to keep the noise levels down, counter allegations of harassment were made.
9. Said he and other neighbours felt extremely vulnerable due to the late night suspected drug activity at the block.
10. Said he had used the contact details for the external mediator. He had also called the local authority noise team on a number of occasions but had been unable to talk to anyone.
11. Four emails to the CEO had not been acknowledged or responded to, sent in March, April, May and June.
12. As a direct result of the alleged perpetrators behaviour the resident was receiving additional support for high levels of anxiety and stress which was impacting his health.
13. The resident was self-employed and works from home in the charity sector via Zoom and telephone. He had to cancel this freelance work on a number of occasions due to the noise generated by the alleged perpetrator and/or because he has been kept awake all night by them.
14. the resident requested to know if the relevant bidding process was followed in allocating the flat to the alleged perpetrator and whether they would be granted a permanent tenancy.
The resident stated that following this he received a call from a member of the ASB team to acknowledge his complaint, the resident described this call as “aggressive and unprofessional”. The landlords notes state this call as “confrontational”, that it advised it would respond in due course but the resident wanted a response as a matter of urgency.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 July 2021. This was responded to by the same member of the ASB team that had called the resident above. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed it was working to determine if there are “excessive noise levels” which could be deemed as ASB from the alleged perpetrator.
2. Clarified if the alleged perpetrators personal behaviours or voice was louder than previous residents then this did not necessarily mean is ASB and could be considered as “general living noise”.
3. Clarified if there was evidence of aggressive or threatening behaviour then it would work with residents to take appropriate action where necessary.
4. Advised the case was “addressed appropriately” and “prioritised accordingly” along with the teams other casework.
5. Confirmed there was a waiting list for the installation of noise equipment and none was available at the time.
6. Confirmed it was liaising with the police and mediation services.
7. Advised if any additional safety or security measures are required these would need to be done in consultation with all residents which could incur an additional service charge.
8. Advised any criminal activity should be reported to the police as the appropriate body to investigate such allegations. The landlord confirmed it worked very closely with the police on such matters.
9. Said it did not believe the properties to have “insufficient soundproofing”.
10. Advised carpets were provided as part of the moving in process and to help mitigate against other general living noise.
11. Said it would instruct a building surveyor to explore the sound proofing issue if residents believed there was an issue.
12. Advised it had carried out ad hoc visits to the block but no noise or ASB had been witnessed.
13. It had received the local authorities decision letter not to accept the community trigger activation.
Emails in July 2021 between the landlord and local authority noise team were provided which state there had been 8 noise app recordings submitted between the dates of 24 May 2021 and 10 June 2021. The local authority noise team described the recordings as not statutory nuisance, noting “can hear a single male gruff voice, external sounds also audible”.
The resident formally requested his complaint be escalated on 13 July 2021, within this request the resident:
1. Said the block had no sound insulation, it was originally designed as a warden controlled sheltered housing block for older people, residents are considerate towards others and are mindful of noise levels. The alleged perpetrator had “consistently made no effort” to minimise the noise they generated and “demonstrated no consideration to other residents”.
2. Asked why the landlord supported the new higher level of noise and did not accept that the swearing, shouting and other behaviours were causing disturbance and distress to other residents.
3. Advised the ASB officer had said noise equipment was available and an install date would be arranged, before retracting this offer.
4. Advised several dates had been suggested for a face to face mediation meeting but he was awaiting confirmation.
5. Advised the issue with security lighting only affected him as he had no lighting outside his property which was at the back corner of the block, it is pitch black at night and nothing is in place to stop people accessing the back of the block from the street.
6. The carpets laid in the alleged perpetrators flat had made “virtually no difference” to the sound levels.
7. The resident confirmed that he would like an independent surveyor to carry out a noise proofing survey.
8. He asked why the alleged perpetrators lifestyle, mannerisms and behaviours were allowed to negatively impact other residents.
9. Advised the alleged perpetrator slept most the day and made noise mainly at night, he had attempted to contact the local authority noise team at night but it was always engaged or closed.
10. He advised that the community trigger was refused but he was advised to formally complain to the landlord as the alternative.
11. He and other residents felt “unsafe and extremely distressed”, felt they had “been placed at risk” by the landlords actions.
Following this, internal emails have been seen that show the landlord deciding not to escalate the complaint as it was described as “going over old ground and recent ground that was covered” in its stage 1 response.
The police advised the landlord and mediator on 23 July 2021 that following an investigation into the incident reported by the resident it had found “insufficient evidence” and it believed mediation would be the best course of action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2021, this was the landlords final response to the residents complaint as it declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2. In this correspondence the landlord said:
1. It would not change its decision.
2. It had responded to all the complaints the resident had made.
3. The ASB case was still open and actively being worked on.
4. As no new information had been supplied to consider the complaint would not be escalated to stage 2.
5. It believed that its previous response was fair and supported by “the policies and procedure to a matter that is still ongoing”.
6. As the decision to not escalate was in line with its policy and it followed the same policy for all customers it would not be able to change its decision.
7. It concluded by advising the resident he could approach The Housing Ombudsman if he remained unhappy with his stage 1 response.

Events following the landlords internal complaint process.

The local authority noise team closed its case on 01 October 2021 due to no evidence of statutory noise.
The landlord carried out a property survey on 4 October 2021 to inspect the properties with the view to potentially install sound proofing measures. The report notes that “there is no need for sound proofing as this will not stop” the noise which is being reported, “shouting, loud speaking”. Following this the surveyor emailed the ASB team to advise whilst they attended the property, they had witnessed the washing machine being on in the alleged perpetrators flat and preceded to visit the flat below to assess the noise. The surveyor stated, “the noise was normal daily washing machine noise which is expected in this kind of building”. The surveyor also noted at this visit, that the resident played a recording and advised the main issue was the alleged perpetrator shouting, stomping and slamming doors. The surveyor advised the resident that was not a repair issue and he would not be recommending sound proofing.
Further emails between the landlord and resident were provided from October 2021. Within these the landlord clearly states it “cannot just move” the alleged perpetrator, only they “can decide if” they wished to move. It also advised the “issues are not considered” to be of a level that would warrant a judge to evict. The resident detailed that the alleged perpetrator continued to “slam doors, stomp around and shout” on the phone.
The landlord fitted noise prevention strips on the alleged perpetrators door on 2 December 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 March 2022 to advise his ASB case was closed. Within the letter the landlord summarised the case and confirmed:
1. When it had initial conversations with the alleged perpetrator it was reported the resident imposed on the viewing of the flat above to explain the “rules” about noises and guests, it confirmed there were no such “rules” in place. The landlord described this behaviour as “intrusive and inappropriate”.
2. In April 2021 a case was opened with the local authority environment and tenancy protection team. The case was closed on 1 October 2021 due to no evidence of statutory nuisance.
3. The resident had contacted the local policing neighbourhood team regarding the noise nuisance, the alleged threatening behaviour and alleged drug activity. The Police had confirmed that despite initial enquiries, the case(s) had been closed due to insufficient evidence.
4. On 15 June 2021, the local authority confirmed they were not going to continue with the community trigger as they felt all actions and interventions by the landlord was “appropriate and proportionate”.
5. Its stage 1 complaint response was a “comprehensive explanation” of the actions carried out in the ASB case.
6. Carpet and underlay had been fitted to the flat above.
7. It had “regularly addressed” the reports of noise nuisance with the alleged perpetrator in an effort to request that they be more careful about their voice volume and “general household living noises”.
8. The alleged perpetrator would like to remain in their property and feels targeted as they do not “fit in”.
9. The residents stage 2 complaint was not upheld due to the ASB case “progressing in accordance with the ASB procedures and actions being taken to investigate” allegations.
10. The landlord had carried out numerous visits to the block and no noise nuisance or ASB was witnessed.
11. It had fitted noise recording equipment in the residents property for 14days, it had moved it from one room to another after 7days at the request of the resident. No evidence of noise nuisance was captured.
12. Mediation had taken place and was “largely deemed to be positive”.
13. A surveyor had reported that there was “nothing structurally wrong with the building” and the soundproofing was in accordance with building regulations.
14. The resident had declined support from the landlord as it could not help move the alleged perpetrator.
15. The external lighting was reviewed, repaired and now in working order.
16. It had fitted noise silencing stripes around the door frames in the alleged perpetrators property to ease any noise impact when doors are closed.
17. Despite the previous 2 noise installation devices in the property not capturing any evidence of noise, it had offered to install the equipment for a third time which the resident declined due to ill health. The resident had later advised he believed the equipment to be not fit for purpose.
18. The landlord concluded by advising the resident no ASB or statutory noise nuisance had been evidenced. The reports of noise nuisance the resident had made were considered “general household living noises” and therefore not a breach of tenancy.
The landlord sent an initial investigation letter to the resident on 21 September 2022. This letter detailed allegations of:
1. “Screaming and shouting at residents visitors.
2. Banging on the ceiling.
3. Filming and taking pictures of visitors”.
In an update to this Service on 26 September 2022, the resident refuted these allegations, he also gave a detailed explanation as to why he disagreed with the landlords outcome of his complaint and ASB case. The resident has confirmed he has had no contact with the alleged perpetrator since October 2021 and continues to live with noise and “occasional incidents”. The resident has said he does not “feel safe enough” to pursue matters further and hopes to not encounter the alleged perpetrator.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said he considers that the situation with the noise nuisance has directly impacted his physical and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
It is clear from the evidence provided to this service, that the alleged noise nuisance and ASB from the above property has caused much distress to the resident. The resident had felt compelled to make several reports to the police about the problems, and to the local authority. On reading the emails and diary sheets the resident has sent to the landlord, the bulk of the noise problems reported consisted of ‘general household noise’ such as stomping, doors banging, shouting. However, the times at which the resident reported the noise occurring, has at times been during unsociable hours, such as 1:30am, 3am and 5am.
Between the dates of 5 March 2021 and 16 February 2022 the resident provided an almost daily log of the noise nuisance experienced, this was submitted via diary sheets. Some days the resident noted “no excessive noise” and others he detailed what he had experienced, mainly banging and shouting and the effect this had on him. The noise described by the resident meets the definition of ASB used by the landlord as the behaviour caused distress to the resident. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to open an ASB case following the residents initial report on 17 March 2021.
The landlord provided extensive evidence showing the communications between itself, the resident and external agencies between the dates 17 March 2021 and 5 April 2022. It kept comprehensive notes of telephone conversations with all parties. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this evidence shows the landlord communicated in a reasonable, timely manner to the resident throughout his ASB case.
The landlord provided comprehensive notes of the initial log of ASB which included agreed actions for the resident and landlord. This was appropriate as the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a residents expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. No evidence has been seen that the landlord managed the residents expectations at the early stages of his ASB case. It was not until October 2021, some 8 months after his initial report did the landlord clearly advise it could not move the resident and the ASB reported would not meet a threshold for enforcement action.
However, the landlord investigated the residents reports appropriately, it held regular case reviews, liaised with different external partner agencies, installed noise monitoring equipment and used mediation services as a means of assisting in the resolution of the case. In cases of neighbour disputes caused by lifestyle differences, mediation can be an effective way of resolving conflict by bringing parties together to understand the views of the other party and arrive at a mutual agreement to live amicably. Although a face to face mediation session took place, which the landlord described as positive, no evidence has been see that further engagement with mediation services was promoted despite the resident still reporting noise nuisance. It would have been best practise for the landlord to continue to encourage both parties to attend mediation again.
Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to attend the property on numerous occasions unannounced in an attempt to witness the ASB reported. As other residents were involved in this dispute it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact other residents in the block to see if they too witnessed or experienced the noise described. This would have given the landlord a more holistic view of any potential ASB occurrence and such investigative action would have been reasonable and proportionate given the long-running nature of the case and the detrimental impact it was having on the resident.
Although the landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, the resident made the landlord aware of his health conditions throughout numerous communications including his initial report of the ASB in March 2021. He also stated he required rest to manage his health conditions and, within his contact with the landlord, regularly used language which clearly indicated that he was experiencing significant distress. It was therefore appropriate of the landlord to offer and refer the resident to its support services.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise identified that, noise transference is a key issue and encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, the landlord is not contractually or otherwise legally obliged to provide sound insulation and the Ombudsman recognises that the cost of such works may be prohibitive. It was reasonable for the landlord to survey the property following the resident requesting it do so, however no evidence has been seen that this survey and conclusion was made on factual data. Whilst it is accepted that the landlord was not obliged to provide soundproofing, it would have been proportionate and appropriate for it to consider what could be done to resolve this issue for the resident. Investigating such a measure may have provided a cost saving as opposed to the investment of staff time in investigating and responding to reports of noise transference.
The mediator notes suggest the underlying issue of the neighbour dispute to be the landlord changing the rules of the block being for those over the age of 55. Even though the age of the perpetrator is not known, the landlord confirmed to the resident in a letter dated 21 April 2021 that the block was not for the over 50’s. However, the residents tenancy agreement states the property is part of block for over 50’s and the landlord confirmed to this service when asked to provide evidence for this case that the block was “an over 50’s block of flats”. Due to the contradictory information about the age restriction of the property an order has been made to clarify this point.
In this case, it is evident the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports, as it demonstrated that it fulfilled obligations to consider and respond to his ASB reports in a timely and reasonable manner. It discussed the issues with the resident, the alleged perpetrator and reviewed evidence. It liaised with police and external agencies and it monitored the resident’s concerns over a 12 month period. However, it failed to adequately manage the residents expectations on the outcome of the case in a timely manner and failed to acknowledge the distress experienced by the resident.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

The landlords complaint policy states there are circumstances when it wouldn’t escalate a complaint to stage 2. It describes this situation as where its decision is based on published service standards and policy.
In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision. The landlord declined to escalate the residents complaint to stage 2 and advised the resident on 13 August 2021, it said this was because:
1. there was no new information about the complaint to consider,
2. it believed it had responded to all the points raised and
3. due to the ASB complaint still being open and actively worked on.
The landlord detailed its reasons for not escalating the complaint however this is not in line with its policy statement as described above, its policy does not state an active ASB case being a reason for not escalating a complaint. The resident asked specific questions in his compliant escalation which the landlord had not acknowledged or responded to, this was not about its policy decision around the ASB as it was still being investigated but what actions it was taking throughout the case. Furthermore the resident highlighted the impact the behaviour this was having on him and this went completely unacknowledged by the landlord in its refusal to escalate the complaint. This was not appropriate.
The landlord denied the resident the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s assessment of his complaint. It would have been proportionate in the circumstances to escalate the complaint and try to seek resolution through the complaints process. Failure to do this amounted to further frustration for the resident in addition to the distress he stated he was experiencing. Overall a finding of maladministration has been found for not escalating the residents complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents associated complaint.

Reasons

In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in the timeframe of the complaint was appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case. It investigated the issues in accordance with its ASB policy, liaised with other services and explained its position on the matters raised. However, it failed to adequately manage the residents expectations on the outcome of the case in a timely manner and failed to acknowledge the distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord decided to not escalate the residents complaint but this was not in line with its complaint policy. It failed to acknowledge all points of the residents complaint and his subsequent escalation request, in particular the impact the noise issue was having on him.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 for the distress caused by failure to escalate his complaint.
3. Instruct an independent sound proofing test at the property to assess if the property provides a reasonable resistance to sound transference.
4. Confirm to the resident and this service if there are any remaining age restrictions at the block.
Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is also ordered to review the operation of its complaint management processes to ensure that any proposals to decline escalation requests are subject to review and decision by a suitable third party uninvolved with the case previously.

Recommendations

It would appear there is a longstanding conflict surrounding this case, it is recommended that the landlord seek to work, by means of mediation or other measures with both parties to promote a refreshed relationship amongst its residents to achieve a level of reasonable tolerance.