Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202322171)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322171

GreenSquareAccord Limited

27 May 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 which we have 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference from outside the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a bungalow, owned by the landlord, which she moved into on 9 February 2023. She has a range of physical health problems including mobility issues, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2023 to report high noise levels from her neighbour’s property and from a public alleyway directly outside her bathroom and bedroom.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 June 2023, as she said she had still not had a response. She also raised other matters, such as delays with repairs, which she did not bring to us for investigation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 August 2023. It said it was waiting for information about the building structure and would contact her by 15 September 2023. It offered a total of £300 in compensation for its complaint handling, communication issues, and the other unrelated issues which it had also considered at stage 1.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the noise issue on 11 September 2023. She said it had only mentioned the sitting room in its response, but the problem was affecting the whole property. She was therefore not confident that it had understood the extent of the problem.
  6. The landlord provided its final response on 14 September 2023. It said it was satisfied it had understood the full issue and its surveyor still expected to contact her by the next day.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us as she said the landlord has not completed its investigations, and she is still experiencing the same noise issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her escalation request to the landlord, the resident reported additional issues with the toilet, windows, bathroom fan, garden gate, and kitchen temperature. She has also told us about an ongoing problem with a damaged manhole cover. We will not consider these matters in this report, as the landlord must have the opportunity to respond under its internal complaints procedure. It is open to her to raise a new complaint and, if she is not satisfied with its final response, she can refer the new case to us.

Noise transference

  1. Reports of noise transference are often challenging for a landlord to manage. It can take time to find the cause, and not every instance of annoyance will be something a landlord is able to remedy. Our 2022 Spotlight Report, “Noise Complaints – Time to be Heard” (our Spotlight Report), recognises that certain buildings may pre-date modern regulations around the thickness of walls between properties. It recommends that landlords check void properties for adequate insulation from transference noise, prior to a new occupant moving in.
  2. The resident made her report of 27 March 2023 around 6 weeks after her tenancy had started. She told the landlord that she could hear an unusually high volume of household noise from the property next door, which adjoined her sitting room and kitchen. She also said she could hear constant noise from a public alleyway directly outside her bathroom and bedroom. She called it again on 15 May 2023 to say it had not been in touch since her report. It apologised and said it would chase its surveyor. However, she raised her complaint of 14 June 2023 as she said she had still not had an update.
  3. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident on 18 July 2023. They said they would get a copy of the original building specifications and contact her again when they had assessed the next steps. It would have been helpful for it to have checked some of the building information prior to the visit. It may not have been realistic to obtain the full specifications before it understood more about the problem, however it knew that she was reporting noise transference from outside the property. It could have consulted its records from when she moved in, to see whether it had been able to check the adequacy of the insulation as recommended in our Spotlight Report. There are no records that it did so, and we have made a recommendation about this.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord at least 4 times in August 2023 to ask when it would send its complaint response. She said she had not heard from the surveyor and was frustrated by the lack of communication. She said she could not use her property comfortably due to the noise disturbance and was also concerned about her own privacy. Its customer liaison and quality manager called her on 23 August 2023 to apologise for the continued delay. According to its call notes, she said the situation had affected her mental health and she was “heartbroken” at the condition of the property. We acknowledge that her comments also concerned the unrelated matters which she did not escalate to stage 2, however she focussed equally on how the noise issue was affecting her.
  5. In the landlord’s call of 23 August 2023, its officer apologised and promised to contact the complaint handler and offer their support to prioritise the response. The evidence shows that they did so that day and expressed their own concerns over the delay. The officer also asked the resident to explain more about her vulnerabilities and how the issue had affected her, which they also passed on to the complaint handler. We recognise that this was good customer service on the part of the officer.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 August 2023. It confirmed that its surveyor had agreed there did not seem to be any soundproofing or cavity insulation, but it was still waiting for the building details. It said it had chased this up and would contact her by 15 September 2023. It apologised and said it was working hard to improve its service, and it offered £300 in compensation as follows:
    1. £100 specifically for the unrelated issues.
    2. £100 for its overall delays and communication failures, in respect of all the issues.
    3. £100 for the delay in its complaint response.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its complaint handling failures, as it did not issue its stage 1 response until 55 working days after the resident had raised her complaint. This alone did not cause the delays with its response to the main issue of reported noise transference, which we have commented on separately. Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, its compensation offer for its delayed complaint response was reasonable.
  8. Of the £100 offered for delays and communication issues, we consider that £35 of this related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise transference reports. This is based on the offer covering 3 elements to her complaint where delays had occurred. This amount does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident raised her escalation request of 11 September 2023 as the landlord had only referred to the sitting room in relation to the noise transference issues. She highlighted that this was affecting the whole property, but it had not gone into detail or mentioned the public alleyway.
  10. In its stage 2 response of 14 September 2023, the landlord said that although it had not referenced the other rooms, it was satisfied that it understood the full extent of the issue. It stated that it still expected its surveyor to contact her by the next day and concluded that its stage 1 response and compensation offer was fair.
  11. The evidence shows that the landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on the day of the stage 2 response and said they would arrange a visit with a builder. It then scheduled an independent acoustic test in December 2023, but it did not consider the subsequent report to be thorough enough so decided to find a different contractor. However, in its response to our request for information in October 2024, it explained that the surveyor then left the organisation and this was not progressed. It said it therefore needed to conduct a further investigation.
  12. The resident told us in May 2025 that the landlord has found another contractor to conduct an acoustic test, but it has not arranged this yet. She says she feels uncomfortable using the property, including the bedroom and bathroom, as she is worried that others can hear her as well as she can hear them. She mentioned that her health and mobility issues can affect how she uses and moves from room to room, and she described that she “dreads coming home”.
  13. The landlord has confirmed that it has found another contractor, and it has updated the resident. It agreed to monitor the progress of this and contact her again week commencing 2 June 2025 with a further update. Despite this, we conclude that there was a significant failing as it is still over 2 years since she first reported the problem, and we have ordered the landlord to pay an increased amount in compensation. This is mainly in recognition of its delays and the impact on the resident until this point. However, we recognise that it is taking positive steps to resolve this and we encourage it to keep in touch with her as it clearly intends to do.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from outside the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write a letter of apology to the resident within 4 weeks of this decision, for the failures identified in this report. It must provide a copy to this Service within this same timescale.
  2. The landlord must ensure that a suitably qualified and independent contractor completes the proposed acoustic survey within 8 weeks of this decision. It must a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
  3. The landlord must confirm its next steps within 4 weeks of the survey report. If it identifies any works, it must also book these within 4 weeks of the survey report and schedule of works to the resident and this Service.
  4. The landlord must pay the resident a further £350 in compensation within 4 weeks of this decision, to reflect its ongoing delays as highlighted in this report. This is in addition to the £300 it offered during the complaint procedure. It must provide evidence of payment to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord identifies any works to the property, it should discuss these with the resident taking her vulnerabilities into account. It should consider whether it needs to provide temporary rehousing during any works.
  2. The landlord should consider its approach to adequate insultation from noise transference, to ensure it checks relevant void properties according to the recommendations in our Spotlight Report.