Sheffield City Council (202331238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331238

Sheffield City Council

27 March 2025

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
2. Reports of a leak, damp and mould and plaster works in the property.
3. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council, which started in August 2023. The property is described as a 2-bed ground floor flat with a cellar. The resident advised that she has physical health issues.
The resident reported various issues to the landlord in August and September 2023. These included:
1. Issues with gas supply and gas boiler.
2. A leak from the flat upstairs causing damage to her kitchen ceiling.
3. Concerns that plaster work was not up to standard.
4. Shower rail and living room door repairs.
The landlord attended the property between August and September 2023 to carry out some repairs. It noted some of the repairs were cancelled due to no access.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 September 2023. She said the property was not fit for occupation when she moved in. She also raised various issues including:
1. Problems with the boiler.
2. Poor communication by her housing officer.
3. Difficulties accessing the property due to poor lighting.
4. Flats to be numbered to ensure post is delivered.
5. Noise disturbance by the neighbours.
The landlord discussed the issues raised with the resident on 21 September 2023. It noted a resolution was offered and the complaint was subsequently closed. It also noted on 27 September 2023 that the resident’s boiler was working.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 24 October 2023. She said the repairs were still outstanding and she was unable to carry out decoration works in the property. She said the leak had been resolved but the repairs to the ceiling had not been done. She said her health was being impacted due to the continued noise disturbance. The landlord noted the complaint was resolved on around November 2023 and closed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2023 regarding ASB and the outstanding repairs. She wanted the landlord to provide a timescale for the works to be done in the property. She said the noise issue had not improved. The landlord wrote to the neighbours the same date about the noise reports. It also noted the repairs to the ceiling and plaster works had been scheduled for 10 November 2023. The resident’s solicitors submitted a disrepair claim which the landlord received on 18 December 2023.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service around 1 February 2024. She said the property was not suitable due to her disability. The landlord carried out a disrepair inspection report on 8 February 2024 and noted plastering works were needed to the lounge, kitchen and bathroom. The landlord visited the resident on 13 February 2024 and discussed rehousing options.
On 16 February 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It confirmed some of the repairs such as remedial works to the kitchen ceiling and repairs to the shower rail were outstanding. It said the ASB case was under investigation, and a referral had been made to occupational therapy on 10 October 2023 for adaptations. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused due to delays in carrying out repairs. It offered £100 as compensation.
The resident raised further complaints between March and May 2024 by phone, in writing and face to face. She complained about poor communication and the overall handling of repairs including the ASB. Following intervention by our Service, the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 October 2024. It acknowledged the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience and said:
1. Urgent arrangements would be made for the works.
2. The resident should follow up any concerns about ASB with her housing officer.
The landlord offered £500 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience and loss of use of the resident’s home.

Summary of events after the complaints process was exhausted

On 25 October 2024 the landlord identified plastering works needed. It noted the resident would be decanted as the works would be intrusive and cause disruption to her.
The landlord decanted the resident in January 2025 for approximately 6 weeks to carry out the repairs.
On 18 March 2025 the resident advised us that the landlord had carried out some repairs, but it had not changed the cupboard contaminated by a sewage leak in the kitchen or resolved damp and mould in the property.
The resident referred the complaint to us for investigation. She raised additional concerns such as damage to personal belongings due to rising damp.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns that the property was not suitable upon letting

The landlord has a vacant property requirements minimum lettable standard for a property to be let. It sets out that gas fires and boilers and all heating appliances will be in good working order and comply with all health and safety standards and regulations. Internal walls and ceilings will be visually free of defects and safe and sound, floors will be structurally sound, properties will be clean, and internal doors will be functioning correctly.
The resident reported various issues in August 2023 shortly after moving into the property. These include:
1. A fault with the boiler.
2. A repair to the shower rail not fixed to the ceiling.
3. Repairs to the living room door.
The landlord said extensive works (including a new kitchen and bathroom installation, plastering and a new boiler) were carried out to the property. We asked the landlord if there were any post-work or pre-tenancy inspection reports detailing the condition of the property when it was handed over to the resident. The landlord noted it could not find a record of this. We have also not been provided with a record of what occurred during the viewing (provided this took place) and at sign up, and any issues the resident may have raised during the process. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. This is not appropriate.
Regarding the boiler, the landlord noted on 23 August 2023 that the resident had no heating or hot water. We have not seen evidence that the necessary checks were completed to ensure the boiler was in good working order before the resident moved in. The resident informed us on 18 March 2025 that the property was very cold when she moved in, but she was unable to use the heating or access hot water for several weeks.
Although the landlord provided a copy of the repairs log for the property, it does not fully account for dates of appointments, outcomes from inspections and dates the repairs were resolved. The landlord noted the resident was very tearful during their telephone conversation on 21 September 2023. She said she wanted to move out of the property due to the outstanding issues.
Based on the evidence, the repair to the:
1. Shower rail was attended on 23 August 2023 but cancelled due to no access and was still outstanding as of 25 September 2023.
2. Internal door was cancelled due to no access in August 2023 and on 31 October 2023, but later completed on 27 November 2024.
3. Boiler was completed around 27 September 2023 approximately 5 weeks after the resident reported the issue.
The landlord did not complete the repairs within the timescales set out for resolving urgent repairs (the boiler) or routine repairs as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy. It is clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays.
In her complaint dated 19 September 2023 the resident said she enquired about adaptations (due to her disability) during sign up, but the housing officer failed to assist. She said they failed to respond to her enquiries after she accepted the property and was later told to contact the relevant team herself. The landlord’s website has information on how residents can self-refer for adaptations to their home. As noted earlier we have not seen evidence of issues raised at sign up, or what (if any) advice was given to the resident based on the limited information.
In its stage 1 response dated 16 February 2024 the landlord apologised for the frustration and inconvenience the resident had experienced. It said the housing officer was off work shortly after they completed the sign up, which meant she was unable to make direct contact with them. The landlord advised the resident to call its call centre in future, if she has difficulty contacting her housing officer to ensure her enquiry is dealt with. It assured the resident that a referral was made on her behalf to the occupational therapy service in October 2023 for an assessment for adaptations in the property. This demonstrates some learning.
The landlord also acknowledged it failed to complete the repairs required at the start of tenancy in a satisfactory manner. It offered £100 as compensation for the inconvenience caused due to the delay in resolving the repair to the boiler. It said it referred to our remedies guidance because it does not have a compensation policy.
The landlord advised us during our investigation that it recognised improvements were needed in managing appointments where access issues have led to cancellations. It said it had since made improvements such that efforts will be made to contact residents for follow on appointments where an appointment is missed.
The Ombudsman welcomes the actions taken by the landlord and plans it has put in place to improve its services. However, it has not identified measures it would take to improve the process for future lettings. For these reasons and issues identified with the record keeping, we have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
Our remedies guidance recommends amounts from £100 to £600 where a service failure has adversely affected a resident. We acknowledge the £100 awarded by the landlord is within our guidance, but it is at the lower end of redress. This does not fully reflect the impact on the resident considering the time and trouble incurred in pursuing various repairs for approximately 12 months.
Due to the above we have awarded an additional £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience to the resident in line with our remedies guidance.

The resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and plaster works in the property

The landlord is responsible for repairing the interior and exterior of the property, including equipment for the supply of heating and hot water. It would aim to resolve urgent and routine repairs within 24 hours and 25 working days respectively
The resident reported a leak into the kitchen ceiling around 24 August 2023. The landlord attended the above flat the same day, but it could not find the source of the leak. It noted this had caused damage to recently decorated areas in the resident’s kitchen including the ceiling. The resident complained on 19 September 2023 that she was not getting help from the landlord. She said her health was being adversely impacted by the ongoing issues and lack of support. The evidence suggests the leak was resolved around 20 September 2023. However, we have not seen evidence of support offered or consideration of the impact on the resident. This is unreasonable.
The resident complained on 24 October 2023 about the delay in works to remedy damage caused by the leak in the kitchen. She said an operative advised her she would need a new kitchen cupboard because sewage waste had leaked into it. She was concerned she would not be able to decorate the property as the repairs had been scheduled for January 2024. The resident’s solicitor also raised concerns in December 2023 about the health and safety issues posed due to the sewage leak. It said the resident was unable to use the kitchen cupboard. Despite the concerns raised the repairs were not carried out in line with the timescales published in the landlord’s repairs policy.
In addition to the resident’s report about a leak, she also expressed dissatisfaction on 19 September 2023 with the plaster work in the property. She said there were several large cracks, and the wallpaper had been plastered over in some parts. In her complaint dated 24 October 2023 said she was unable to carry out decoration works to the property due to the delays. Though we have not seen evidence of the visit, she said an operative visited and took pictures, but no feedback had been provided. This would have caused the resident some frustration and uncertainty. The resident’s solicitors chased this up in their disrepair claim to the landlord on 15 December 2023. From the evidence seen, the landlord had not confirmed it would carry out the works requested.
The disrepair claim noted concerns about damp and mould throughout the cellar in the property. It also said there was black mould growth by the electric box which had caused the brickwork to become wet and cold to touch. It said the resident initially reported this to the landlord in September 2023, but the landlord advised it only became aware through the disrepair claim in December 2023. However, there was mention of a survey for damp on 30 November 2023 in the landlord’s records. This suggests the resident may have expressed concerns about damp earlier which was not recorded in the repairs log or acted upon.
The landlord carried out a disrepair inspection around 8 February 2024. The report recommended some plastering works to the lounge, kitchen (reskimmed and decorate ceiling) and bathroom. With regards to the cellar, it noted visible evidence of water entering via underfloor vents and suggested the air vents were inspected and cleared to prevent water penetration. The landlord noted these actions were taken on 26 February 2024. However, we have not seen evidence of the landlord’s assessment of damp in the cellar and if works were needed to resolve it. This is not appropriate.
The landlord arranged to start the repairs around 26 February 2024. However, the resident did not want to remain in the property whilst the works were being done. The landlord subsequently offered the resident alternative accommodation around 4 April 2024, but she refused the offer due to concerns about the suitability.
The landlord liaised with the occupational therapy service, and they advised that the property may be suitable on a short-term basis. The resident disputed this and said she was not present at the assessment. The landlord noted it would be difficult to find a property matching the resident’s specific requests and considered carrying out the repairs with the resident in the property, but she refused. The delays experienced at this stage were outside the landlord’s control.
The evidence indicates further attempts were made by the landlord between May and October 2024 to start the works. We have also seen there were periods the resident was unavailable due to health issues. On 3 October 2024 the resident said she had been in hospital and was recuperating at a relative’s. She said she had been receiving phone calls from operatives trying to book appointments for renovation works, but she would not be available until the following week. This shows the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the outstanding repairs.
A senior manager of the landlord’s responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 17 October 2024 apologised for the failure in service. They acknowledged the landlord could have handled the repairs better as the service experienced by the resident fell below the expected standard. They said:
1. This was due to poor organisation and communication between the teams.
2. A manager would contact the resident and agree the extent of works required and provide a timescale for completion.
3. The works would be completed without delay to minimise any further disruption to the resident.
The landlord also offered £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the loss of use of the resident’s home. The evidence shows the landlord worked with the resident following the stage 2 response and followed up the actions agreed. It also revisited the option of a temporary move and assisted her into alternative accommodation to facilitate the repairs. This demonstrates some learning.
We have seen that some of the repairs (due to the leak) raised by the resident in August 2023 were not resolved until early 2025. This was partly due to the delay in acting swiftly to resolve the repair in the early stages and the difficulties encountered in organising a temporary move. Also, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not consistent which cost her time and trouble in pursuing updates from the landlord.
The resident expressed in several communications with the landlord, that the poor communication and condition of the property was adversely affecting her health. This resulted in exceptional delays in carrying out the works and the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s property. Due to the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould, plaster works, and various repairs within the property.
The landlord said it referred to our remedies guidance in awarding compensation. It said its offer of £500 is in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and for the loss of use of the home but it has not clearly set out how it arrived at this amount. It is evident there were significant failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs which the resident said adversely affected her health. She also incurred time and trouble while she actively pursued the repairs for approximately 12 months.
Our remedies guidance recommends awards between £600 to £1000 for service failure that has had a significant impact on a resident. Considering the impact to the resident, the amount offered by the landlord did not go far enough to put things right. To address this we have awarded an additional amount of £300 bringing the total amount to £800.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy describes ASB as a variety of issues which can cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm, or distress or which have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the locality. This can range from a minor issue to serious criminal activity. This includes failure to control a pet.
The policy does not consider reasonable household noise to be ASB as this is dealt with in a different way, and the landlord’s involvement will be limited. In most cases it will provide guidance and tips around how the complainants themselves can resolve issues with their neighbours, or it may refer the complainant to a mediation or support service.
The landlord will aim to contact the resident within 2 working days to gather information, explain options and agree an action plan for investigating the problems they are experiencing. If it decides to take no further action on a case, it will explain the reasons and confirm this in writing.
The resident reported noise from the neighbours above her flat through her complaint on 19 September 2023. She described this as household noise from 6am in the morning. She said this was affecting her mental health, and she wanted to be moved. The resident chased up her report on 2 November 2023. She said the issue was getting worse as it was affecting her health and sleep. The landlord said it had not contacted the neighbours regarding the reports. This was unreasonable. The resident’s housing officer (HO) apologised and assured her it would follow up the case. It also arranged for diary sheets to be sent to the resident.
Following their phone conversation with the resident on 2 November 2023, the HO noted other issues raised such as dog fouling in the garden, and noise due to the dog barking. They also contacted the neighbour to be mindful and respectful of other neighbours’ living spaces. The neighbour apologised for any disturbance, and they assured the landlord they would take all issues discussed into consideration. The HO also provided feedback to the resident on 9 November 2023. These actions were appropriate.
The resident reported on 12 December 2023 that the noise was getting worse. She said she wanted to move out as the ongoing issue was making her feel depressed. The HO asked the resident if she had family or friends, she could stay with for a couple of days. While this may have been a temporary solution, the resident asked the landlord for a long-lasting solution.
The HO reviewed the diary sheets submitted by the resident on 19 December 2023. Incidents of banging and disturbance by the neighbour’s dog were recorded by the resident. They contacted the neighbour the same day to discuss the reports. The neighbour agreed to get a rug and change indoor footwear to reduce the noise. They also provided feedback to the resident, but she said the issue had gotten worse and they felt the neighbour was causing the disturbance deliberately. They advised the resident to monitor the situation and if things did not improve, they would consider other options in the new year. These actions were appropriate.
The HO contacted the resident on 15 February 2024 to follow up the ASB. The resident advised there had been no change and things had become worse as she could hear tapping, and clear conversations including arguments. The HO asked if she thought this was due to poor sound proofing rather than the neighbours, and she responded that this was a contributing factor. The HO noted the resident did not want them to approach the neighbour anymore as they would rather focus on rehousing. They assured the resident they would investigate the options available and contact her again. This was reasonable.
The landlord discussed the resident’s housing options with her on 22 February 2024. It said she was not eligible for a move, but it offered other rehousing options. Although the landlord acknowledged possible issues with soundproofing, we have not seen evidence that it investigated this further. The resident also asked as part of her complaint on 28 March 2024 if the landlord could take steps to improve the noise transmission between the properties. The landlord did not follow this up. This was unreasonable.
The landlord noted the resident was being considered for a temporary move and closed the case on 12 April 2024. It said there had been no further reports from her. We have not seen evidence of confirmation in writing to the resident that the case was being closed. This is not in adherence to its ASB policy.
The resident complained on 13 and 26 May 2024 about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She said the constant noise continued to affect her health which led to her being admitted to hospital. Based on the evidence the landlord did not contact the resident until October 2024. This is not appropriate. It is noted that the resident advised the landlord in February 2024 that she did not want it to contact the neighbours anymore about her reports. However, the landlord should have contacted her (when she revisited the matter in May 2024) to review the issue.
The landlord advised the resident on 4 November 2024 that it would consider noise monitoring equipment. The resident was pleased with this suggestion due to the length of time this had been going on. The landlord visited the property on 3 December 2024 and noted it had witnessed the dog barking. We have not seen evidence of any further action taken to address the ASB or noise reports. The resident advised us during our telephone conversation on 18 March 2024 that the noise disturbance was still ongoing.
Overall, the landlord initially delayed following up the resident’s reports for 6 weeks, but it appeared to learn from this and actively tried to resolve the issue with both parties. However, we have not seen evidence that it offered mediation to the resident or considered any referrals for support despite her repeated reports of the impact of the noise on her health. The landlord also failed to follow up its offer of noise monitoring equipment and it did not respond to her request for works to reduce noise transfer between the flats. The resident said the landlord was dismissive of the evidence she provided and she felt her concerns were not taken seriously.
Due to the above there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. From the failures identified it is evident that the resident had experienced distress, frustration, uncertainty, and a loss of confidence in the landlord. She expressed in various communications over a period of more than 12 months of the:
1. Adverse impact of the noise on her mental health.
2. Need to spend more time away from the property to be able to get some sleep.
The landlord failed to address this in its complaint responses nor did it recognise the impact on the resident. In view of this we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 to address this. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which have had a significant impact on a resident, and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints procedure, at the time of the complaint involved a three-stage process.
1. Stage 1 (problem solving stage) involves cases that can be resolved without formal investigation to the resident’s satisfaction within three working days.
2. Stage 2 (investigation stage where it is not possible to resolve the complaint through the problem solving) resolutions have a response timescale of 28 days. It will contact the customer if it needs more time to respond.
3. Stage 3 (investigation review) has no listed timescale for the review stage of the process.
When the landlord is at fault, it will aim to resolve the complaint by putting the customer back into the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred, or by offering another remedy if this is not possible. The landlord said it had since updated its complaints policy to align with our complaint handling code on 1 April 2024.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaints received raised on 19 September and 24 October 2023. It said it would aim to resolve the complaints within 3 working days. Where this was not possible it said it would let her know and respond within 20 working days. However, the landlord closed the complaints on 30 November 2023 without providing a formal response to the resident. This was not appropriate.
Following our intervention on 2 February 2024 the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 16 February 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s complaints were closed without investigation and apologised for any confusion caused. However, it did not follow its complaints policy, which sets out that it should consider offering a remedy for any inconvenience caused due to the service failure.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 28 March 2024, 19 April 2024 (through a phone call), in person on 13 May 2024, 14 May and 26 May 2024 (to the chief executive officer). The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 May 2024, and assured her that it had been passed to a senior manager to investigate and respond to. However, the resident experienced further delays. This is evidence that it did not learn from the previous complaint.
The resident asked for our intervention due to the continued delays by the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2024 and asked it to respond within 5 working days. It responded on 17 October 2024 approximately 6 months after the resident raised the stage 2 complaint. This is not appropriate.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. Also, it failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s ASB complaint. Despite the resident’s dissatisfaction expressed in her complaints about its handling of the ASB, its only response was that she should contact her HO if she had any further difficulties. This would have caused the resident some frustration. She contacted us on 7 November 2024 and said she was being passed to different officers.
Overall, there are significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It is concerning that the landlord did not take the resident’s complaints seriously until she escalated the matter to us. It failed to use its complaints process to resolve the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. She waited approximately:
1. 5 months for the stage 1 response and
2. 6 months for the stage 2 response.
This caused the resident distress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaints. The landlord has not demonstrated learning from the complaints. Due to the above we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. To address this we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In a letter dated 21 January 2025 the landlord said:
1. It is focused on improving complaint handling and record keeping also identified by the Housing Ombudsman as key areas of development.
2. All staff responsible for investigating complaints will have completed the effective complaints handling learning by the end of February 2025 as part of continuous staff learning and development and as ordered by the Housing Ombudsman.
3. As part of improvement to timescales when managing complaints, improved tracking and monitoring methods have been introduced, with a focus or scrutiny on complaints which are more complex to better support staff and the customer experience.
4. It had taken learnings from our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) with focus on ensuring effective records are created and maintained.
5. It is investing in a new housing management system, with recommendations in place to support improved record keeping of customer information.
Based on the above information we would not be making any further orders regarding the landlord’s complaint handling approach. However the landlord should take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and plaster works in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior member of the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £1700 broken down as:
  1. £300 (including the £100 offered by the landlord on 16 February 2024) of its handling of the concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
  2. £800 (including the £500 offered by the landlord on 17 October 2024) for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the repairs.
  3. £300 for the distress, time and trouble and inconvenience due to its handling of the ASB.
  4. £300 for the time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident for its complaint handling.
  5. The total to be paid to the resident can be reduced by any compensation already paid.
3. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding repair issues in the property. This should include an inspection of any outstanding repairs following the leak, and damp and mould reported in the cellar.
4. The outcome of the inspection and any agreed actions should be confirmed to the resident in writing. Where works are identified, it should outline the scope of works required and an expected date for completion. A copy should be provided to this Service.
5. Follow up with the resident outstanding actions regarding her reports of ASB. It should consider if noise monitoring equipment can be installed. It should also respond to the resident’s request for works to reduce noise transmission within the properties.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to review its handling of this case and identify what went wrong and areas of learning. This should include its handling of:
1. The necessary inspections prior to the resident moving in, and its management of the associated records.