TBG Open Door Limited (202202133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202133

TBG Open Door Limited

20 April 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs property.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property was a “new build” property when the tenancy began in July 2020. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the second floor of the building which is comprised of similar properties. The resident has complained of noise transference from neighbours living in the property situated above hers. She lives in the property with her young son.

Scope of investigation

As part of her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that the issues she experienced within the property impacted her and her son’s mental health and wellbeing. It is not within the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
Under Paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. As part of her communication, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the actions and investigations carried out by the local authority’s Environmental Health department (EH). The Housing Ombudsman is unable to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint as complaints related to the actions of a local authority’s Environmental Health department fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The report will refer to the actions taken by EH, however, the resident may wish to raise a complaint with EH directly and approach the LGSCO should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
Alongside the complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of various repairs and defects within the property. These issues did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Summary of events

The resident first raised concerns about noise transference from the property above on 30 December 2020. The noise included her neighbour walking around the property and their children running and jumping. She added that the property shook and that vibration from her neighbours washing machine often shook items off her cooker as early as 7am. She expressed concern that she could hear joists in the floor above moving and was concerned that the ceiling would collapse. She advised that she had attempted to speak to her neighbour who was rude and inconsiderate of the impact the noise was having. She added that her young son was not able to sleep at his usual bedtime due to noise from upstairs. She asked that someone attended to assess the situation.
The landlord responded on the same day to advise that it had passed the resident’s concerns on to her housing officer. It also advised the resident that she could report the noise issues to EH.
The resident continued to pursue her concerns about noise on 13 April 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that she had received no contact from her housing officer. She advised that she would contact her MP and EH. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and confirmed that the matter had been passed to her housing officer who would respond within five to ten working days. She sent a further email on 9 May 2021 due to a lack of response; the landlord confirmed that the matter had been passed to a housing manager on 17 May 2021.
The resident asked for a call back on 24 May 2021 regarding the noise from the flat above. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord lack of response to her emails. She advised that she had attempted to speak to the neighbour which ended in an argument. The landlord’s records suggest that the landlord called the resident and advised that noise from children shouting would not be considered as anti-social behaviour (ASB) under its policy. However, the resident advised on 1 June 2021 that she had not received any contact.
The landlord’s internal records suggest that the resident had reported noise issues from the property above to the police on a number of occasions. A meeting took place on 7 July 2021 between the landlord, police and EH to discuss the resident’s reports of noise to both the landlord and the police. The records show that there had been a lack of clarity about which member of staff was responsible for the resident’s block. The landlord confirmed that the case did not meet the threshold to be considered ASB and did not meet the trigger for statutory noise nuisance. An action plan was created to check that the building was compliant with building standards and noise insulation standards, liaise with both residents to advise them to keep noise diary sheets and complete door knocks to liaise with other tenants regarding reports of noise.
A 12-month end of defect inspection was carried out within the building on 13 July 2021. The evidence suggests that the landlord and builders of the property explained to the resident that the carpet of the upstairs property was thin with no underlay but that sound tests were carried out when the property was built to achieve building compliance and no further action was required from a building perspective. It also confirmed that no other residents within the building had raised concerns about noise transference during the inspection. The landlord’s internal records show that it had recommended that the neighbour was asked to install underlay and an anti-vibration mat under their washing machine and that the landlord should assist with the purchase of these items.
On 9 September 2021, the resident contacted the developer of the property about a number of defects in the property. She also advised that she was waiting for EH to contact her and asked what was happening with the sound transference issues. The developer advised the resident to contact the landlord regarding this matter. The landlord’s internal records suggest that the developers had trouble accessing the property as the resident did not want works to proceed until her noise complaint had been resolved. The developer confirmed to the landlord that airborne and impact sound tests were completed and the building met regulations so was not considered a defect.
On 3 November 2021, following counter-allegations of ASB from the resident toward her neighbour, the landlord contacted the resident, who admitted to shouting at her neighbour because of the ongoing noise issues late at night. The landlord advised the resident to have no further contact with her neighbour. The landlord’s records show that the landlord received a crime reference number from the police on 30 November 2021 involving an incident between the two neighbours and that an ASB officer would investigate. This Service has not been provided with any further information related to the incident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 December 2021 to ask for an update regarding her reports of noise. She advised that the police had been involved and that, despite the landlord saying it would be looking into the matter, nothing had been done. She advised that her child had less than five hours of decent sleep each night since the upstairs neighbours moved in and her first report of issues. She said that she felt let down and wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s records show that the neighbour moved from the upstairs property on 24 January 2022 and another family moved in around this time.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 January 2022 and apologised for the delayed response. It advised that it had experienced a number of system issues which affected its response time. It said it hoped that the resident had since heard form a member of staff but asked that the resident let it know if this was not the case. It advised that it could log a formal complaint. The resident responded and asked for a complaint to be raised. She advised that the noise issues were having a significant impact on her mental health and asked that the landlord help.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 15 February 2022 and explained the following:
1. The member of staff responsible for responding had been away form the business. It apologised for the delayed response. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about noise from the property above for some time. Members of staff and EH had advised that there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance or evidence that the noise was deliberate. As such, it was not possible for it or EH to take enforcement action against her neighbour.
2. It explained that a member of staff had contacted its new-build team in July 2021 regarding the building’s compliance with sound insulation regulations. It confirmed that sound tests were carried out and that the building passed the compliancy tests. The new build team also carried out a final handover inspection with the builders of the property in July 2021 and, during the visit, spoke to all the residents except for one, none of whom reported any noise transference issues.
3. It noted that the resident had spoken to its ASB officer who advised that the incidents reported did not meet the necessary requirements to be considered ASB or for a case to be opened and investigated.
4. The former neighbour had since moved from the property above and a new neighbour was now living there who had fitted underlay and carpet which would improve the insulation between the two properties. It noted that EH had visited the property on 30 January 2022 and identified that the noise experienced would be considered general household noise and would not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
5. It confirmed that it would not consider any form of sound insulation work to a newly built property that met the regulatory requirements for noise transference. It advised the resident to seek independent legal advice if she disagreed with its conclusions.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 February 2022 and explained the following:
1. She had not received any communication from members of staff identified in the landlord’s stage one complaint response despite chasing and calling. She advised that she had heard from its ASB officer but had heard nothing since they said they would investigate the matter. She said that none of her emails had been responded to and felt ignored by the landlord.
2. She advised that two other neighbours had said that they also mentioned noise transference during inspections.
3. She expressed concern that the incidents she had reported did not meet the requirements to be considered ASB, but on 30 December 2021 the police were called due to her life being threatened by the upstairs neighbours. She said that the tenancy agreement stated that where a threat to life was made, the landlord would act and pursue an eviction. She asked why this did not happen.
4. She added that her neighbours had installed laminate, not carpet, which had made the situation worse. She asked whether the landlord had given permission for this to be installed in line with the tenancy agreement.
5. She asked that a sound test was completed so that someone could see and hear the issues for themselves. She advised that she had recorded 100db via an app and was unsure how the property passed the sound proofing checks. She asked what level of sound she was supposed to hear in her property.
6. She advised that she and her son’s mental health and wellbeing were being significantly affected by the noise issues and that the landlord had not investigated the issue or witnessed the noise. She advised that her son was being kept awake until 10:30pm with banging and running in the flat above and that her mental health was significantly impacted by the noise.
The landlords’ records suggest that audio recordings were provided around 1 March 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 2 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. Regarding the resident’s comments about threats to her life by the former neighbour, these were a criminal matter and any investigation was carried out by the police rather than the landlord. It relied on police evidence to allow it to take enforcement action. The police had advised that they were not pursuing action against the resident’s former neighbour and that the former neighbour no longer lived in the property above.
2. It noted that the resident had been advised to contact EH regarding the noise issues. Its ASB officer had advised that the matter would not be considered ASB and referred the matter to the resident’s housing officer, but it could not see that contact was made, for which it apologised. It acknowledged that it should have made it clear that there was no evidence of ASB at an earlier stage and that it would not take formal action.
3. It acknowledged that the resident wanted a sound test to be completed and did not feel that the property had adequate sound insulation. It advised that it did not complete sound testing itself but had spoken to EH. EH had visited the property on 30 January 2022 and advised that the noise was considered everyday household noise, not a statutory noise nuisance.
4. There was no evidence that the noise was deliberate by either the former or current neighbours. As such, it could not consider enforcement action on this basis. It confirmed that the building complied with all necessary regulations during construction, and it would not consider retrospective sound insulation work for this reason.
5. It confirmed that it had listened to the audio recordings provided by the resident, which sounded like normal domestic living noise from another property, but this was difficult to hear from the recording. It advised the resident to contact EH again if this noise was happening during unsocial hours.
6. It confirmed that it would contact the neighbour above regarding the resident’s allegations that they had installed laminate flooring.
The resident continued to pursue her concerns with the landlord, her councillor and EH following the landlord’s final response.
A visit to the property took place on 30 March 2022 involving the landlord, the resident, EH and her councillor. Following the visit, the landlord confirmed that it would not ask the upstairs neighbour to remove the laminate as it was advised by EH that removing the laminate and installing carpet with underlay would have a minimal impact on noise due to its high quality. It would be contacting the neighbour and would offer to purchase rugs to lay over the laminate. It agreed to offer the resident a management transfer should she wish to move to another property. It also agreed to write off any rent arrears the resident had should she find a property through a mutual exchange. It hoped that it demonstrated its willingness to resolve the situation.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of impact noise from the property above hers. She was dissatisfied that her upstairs neighbour was allowed to keep laminate flooring and that she and her child were either woken up early or kept awake at night due to hearing footsteps, running, banging and vibration from the property above. She maintained that the noise issues were having a significant impact on her mental health. She wanted a sound test to be completed between the properties, the noise to be monitored, the laminate in the property above to be removed and sound insulation to be installed. She did not want to move from her property but wanted the sound transference issues resolved.
The landlord’s records show that it reimbursed the resident’s neighbour for the cost of rugs in July 2022. The resident continued to report that the laminate in the property above had made the noise transference worse.
In her continued communication with this Service, the resident has provided an update on the current position. She has advised that the noise issues were ongoing. She had submitted noise diary entries to the landlord but had received no feedback. She had also been informed in December 2022 that EH would be completing a sound test between the two properties alongside the landlord’s repairs team but had not heard anything further about this despite chasing. She maintained that she did not want to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must not make noise that causes a nuisance to neighbours at any time, but especially between 11pm and 8am. It further states that residents must not install any materials that are likely to cause noise nuisance (for example, laminate flooring) unless permission has been obtained by the landlord. The landlord would not refuse permission without good reason but if a resident has not sought permission the landlord may ask that this is removed.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that reports of day to day living noise, including the installation of laminate flooring where it magnifies the noise, neighbours walking around their home or using their washing machine would not be considered ASB. The landlord would work to manage a customer’s expectations regarding behaviour that is not identified as ASB by offering advice and guidance.
The landlord’s website states that if a resident reports noise nuisance from neighbours, such as those with laminate flooring, it may be referred to a neighbourhood housing officer in specific circumstances. If a report is not identified as ASB, the landlord would provide advice and signpost residents to relevant teams such as EH.
The website further states that neither the landlord nor EH would consider living or domestic noises such as neighbours walking around their home, noises travelling through ceilings or walls due to poor insulation or laminate flooring or normal domestic activity such as vacuuming or using washing machines to be ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs property.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of noise and ASB from the property above hers. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise and ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It should be noted that landlords cannot be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise and outside of a tenant’s control. However, where reports of noise are made, the landlord would be expected to liaise with Environmental Health to establish whether the noise constitutes a statutory noise nuisance. If a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both the landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise report (October 2022), where noise is not considered to be a statutory noise nuisance, it is important for a landlord to handle reports seriously, sensitively and proportionately. A landlord should not dismiss a resident’s reports of noise on the basis that it did not constitute ASB or a statutory noise nuisance. It would be expected to clearly communicate with residents and manage their expectations of how a noise report would be handled, detailing potential actions to minimise the noise experienced or the limitations it faced in doing so.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has reported impact noise from the property above from December 2020 to date. Following her initial reports of jumping, running, banging and vibration from the property above in December 2020, there was a delay in fully acknowledging her concerns until July 2021, approximately seven months later. While the landlord had advised that her comments had been passed to a housing officer to investigate between December 2020 and May 2021, it is inappropriate that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concerns due to a lack of response.
The landlord’s internal records suggest that the delay at this stage was due to a lack of clarity around which member of staff was responsible for managing the resident’s block and investigating her concerns. The onus would be on the landlord to ensure that its staff were aware of their responsibilities to avoid any avoidable delays in the provision of its service. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging or explaining this delay to the resident at any stage or apologising for its failure to consider her concerns at an earlier date, which was likely to cause frustration.
The landlord’s records show that a joint meeting was held on 7 July 2021 as the resident had reported noise issues to the police. It was established that the noise reported did not meet the threshold to be considered ASB, which was reasonable given that the reported noise related to the upstairs neighbour’s use of the property and was not identified to be deliberate. Given that EH had advised that there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable that no formal action was taken against the resident’s neighbour in respect of the noise transference. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified staff and EH when deciding what action to take. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that early intervention was required and creating an action plan to check that the building met regulations, liaise with both tenants and advise them to keep noise diary sheets and complete a door knock.
While the landlord did take steps to ensure that the building met all relevant sound insulation regulations when built, and completed a door knock exercise during the 12-month end of defect inspection on 13 July 2021, it remains unclear as to whether the resident was asked to keep noise diary sheets, which would have been appropriate in order to gain evidence of the frequency of the noise reported and establish whether further intervention was required.
Following the 12-month end of defect inspection on 13 July 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by explaining that the building met relevant sound insulation regulations. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the sound insulation test report, conducted in April 2020, prior to the building being handed over to the landlord. It shows that the building passed all relevant tests in relation to the decibels heard between properties and met the required standard at the time it was built. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm this to the resident and explain that it would not install additional sound proofing on this basis. The landlord would not be obliged to soundproof the property above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, given the resident’s reports that the noise experienced was excessive and the impact it was having on her and her son, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider other factors that may be contributing to the noise experienced.
The inspection found that the carpet of the property above was thin with no underlay and that there was no anti-vibration mat installed below the neighbours washing machine, both of which were identified as contributing factors to the noise transference into the resident’s property. The internal records detail recommendations for the landlord to ask the neighbour to install underlay and an anti-vibration mat or assist with the purchase of these items to help mitigate the noise transference.
The landlord has provided no documentary evidence to suggest that these suggestions were explored in an attempt to resolve the sound transference between properties at this stage which was a missed opportunity to help resolve the issues experienced by the resident and the identified tension between the two residents. The apparent lack of consideration of these options or explanation as to why this did not progress is of particular concern given that the resident was aware of the need for an anti-vibration mat, as detailed in her communication to the landlord’s developer in September 2021. This indicates a failure to effectively manage the resident’s expectations which was likely to cause frustration for her, particularly as she felt the need to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns.
The Ombudsman has been provided with little evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident regarding her reports following the inspection in July 2021, which aligns with the resident’s assertion within her complaint that she had received no communication from the landlord. The landlord’s records show that in September 2021, the developer of the property had reported having trouble gaining access to the resident’s property to complete defect repairs due to the resident allegedly refusing to sign off on works until she had been contacted about her noise complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have pro-actively contacted the resident to clearly set out its position or taken further steps to investigate her concerns at this stage. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so, highlighting a further missed opportunity by the landlord.
The landlord has provided little information regarding the incidents that occurred between the resident and her neighbours in November and December 2021. However, it is noted that there was police involvement, with the resident admitting to shouting in response to the ongoing noise issues and the resident alleging that the neighbours’ partner had threatened her. Within her complaint, the resident expressed concern that the incidents were not considered to be ASB, and that the landlord did not take formal action against her neighbour’s tenancy at this stage. The landlord reasonably explained within its complaint responses that it relied on police evidence to support it in taking formal action as threats of violence would be a criminal matter.
Nevertheless, while a landlord would not be able take formal action against a tenant while the police investigation was ongoing, it would be expected to investigate a resident’s report of threats by speaking to both parties and taking informal action where appropriate such as warnings. It would also be expected to offer mediation to both parties in an attempt to resolve any ongoing dispute. It was reasonable in the circumstances that no formal action was taken against the resident’s neighbour due to a lack of supporting evidence from the police but the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had investigated her concerns at the time, communicated effectively or considered any informal action it could take in response to the allegations. This was unlikely to have had a significant impact on the resident as the neighbour moved from the property in January 2022, removing them from the situation. However, effective communication at the time would have gone some way to show that it had taken the resident’s reports seriously.
It is noted that when a new neighbour moved in during January 2022, the resident continued to report the same noise transference into her property, indicating that the issues experienced were the result of the property itself rather than any deliberate action by the respective neighbours above. The resident raised concerns that the new neighbour had installed laminate in their property.
EH visited the property on 30 January 2022 and 30 March 2022. It initially confirmed that the noise experienced was considered general domestic living noise and later confirmed that removing the laminate in the upstairs property and installing carpet with underlay would have a minimal impact on the noise experienced due to the high-quality installation of the laminate and underlay used. The landlord acted reasonably by relying on the opinions of EH in its decision to allow the neighbour to keep the laminate in place. It acknowledged the impact the noise was having on the resident and made reasonable and resolution-focused efforts to minimise the noise experienced by purchasing rugs for the upstairs property.
While it its noted that the resident does not wish to move from the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a management move to the resident or offer to write off any arrears if she found a suitable property through a mutual exchange in order to remove her from the current situation given the reported impact on her and her son. However, the landlord has not satisfactorily explained why the move was offered or managed the resident’s expectations. While it may have been possible that it could take no further action in response to the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord fully explained its position or the limitations it faced before offering a management move. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered a further explanation as to why it felt a move would be the most suitable resolution to the resident’s concerns so that she could make a more informed decision about what she wanted to do in relation to its offers.
The resident has provided evidence that she has been pursuing both the landlord and EH for a sound test to be completed between the two properties and she was led to believe in December 2022 that this was due to be carried out by EH and the landlord’s repairs team. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this is due to be completed. Given the resident’s concerns about the level of noise experienced within the property, that the laminate flooring in the property above had made the impact noise worse and that the rugs had a minimal effect, it would be reasonable for consideration of noise monitoring equipment being installed to determine whether any further action can be taken to minimise the impact of the noise transference on the resident. It is noted that the landlord has advised that it does not complete sound testing itself and relies on EH to carry this out. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to liaise with EH to gain an understanding of the current position and arrange for noise monitoring to be carried out.
In summary, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to liaise with EH, confirm its position to the resident regarding the laminate flooring, purchase rugs for the property above and offer the resident options regarding moving from the property in an attempt to mitigate the noise experienced. However, there was a significant delay in acting on the resident’s concerns during December 2020 to mid-2021 and several missed opportunities by the landlord in attempting to resolve the resident’s concerns. In addition, there was poor communication by the landlord and it failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations in relation to how her reports would be handled and any limitations it faced in response to her concerns – this resulted in additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns.
The landlord has somewhat acknowledged its poor communication with the resident within its complaint responses, However, it has not offered suitable redress for its failings. In view of the identified failings, several orders and recommendations have been made below.
Given the resident’s ongoing concerns and time and trouble pursuing a resolution to her concerns, recommendations have been made below that the landlord consider evidence provided by the resident since its final complaint response, liaise with EH to gain an understanding of the current position and any set out what actions it is able to take to mitigate noise transference.
It should be noted that there may be no further action for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s reports of noise transference as it would not be obliged to install sound proofing to the upstairs property. However, the landlord should contact the resident to confirm its position on whether any further action can be taken on order to manage her expectations following discussion with EH.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of noise from an upstairs property.

Reasons

While the landlord took reasonable steps to engage with the local authority’s Environmental Health team, purchase rugs for the neighbouring property in an attempt to minimise noise disruption and make different offers in relation to the resident’s housing options, it did not communicate effectively with the resident or satisfactorily manage her expectations from the outset which was likely to have caused inconvenience and frustration for the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, that landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor communication and delay in acting on her reports of noise transference.
3. Consider the resident’s noise diary entries and liaise with EH to arrange for a sound test to be completed;
4. Arrange to visit the upstairs property to consider whether sufficient anti-vibration measures are in place following previous recommendations;
5. Write to the resident to confirm the outcome of its consideration of her noise diary and provide a plan of action to arrange a sound test and any other steps that it is currently able to take to reduce the impact of noise on her.
The landlord should write to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its current position (as detailed on its website) in response to non-statutory noise complaints to ensure that complaints of this nature are not unreasonably dismissed. It should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Noise (October 2022) to ensure it acts on recommendations made and that its processes are in line with best practice.
The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.