London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202429269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429269

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

7 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the lower ground floor. The neighbour lives directly above the resident.
On 4 September 2023 the resident reported she was being disturbed by noise from the neighbour during the day and at night. She said this was impact noise from them moving around and a new dog being kept in their property. She also reported airborne noise from the neighbour talking, shouting, watching TV and vacuuming.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 October 2023. She said she had attended the landlord’s office 3 days earlier for a pre-arranged meeting about the noise, only to be told the staff member had left and the meeting would not go ahead. She explained she had been chasing for updates since she reported the noise, but had not received a reply.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 December 2023 it said it had tried to contact the resident by phone and email. It asked her to get in touch so it could open an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case and investigate.
On 5 January 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She reported the noise was ongoing and said she was not satisfied the landlord had fully addressed this.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 12 February 2024 said the complaint was upheld. It said it had been unable to provide a history of the case, due to a staff member leaving. It apologised for this service failure and said it needed to have more robust record keeping practices in place. It confirmed it had been in contact with the resident recently and agreed to visit the neighbour to inspect their property; and her to get an understanding of the noise affecting her.
In October 2024 the resident asked us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us the noise has negatively affected her and her family’s health. We not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. The resident can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. We have considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Noise nuisance

The landlord’s ASB policy gives examples of grade ASB 3 cases as noise from wooden flooring and noise nuisance, including dog related noise, shouting and noise from TVs. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the resident’s reports as such and dealt with them in line with its ASB policy.
Despite the landlord stating it would open an ASB case in its stage 1 response, we have seen no evidence that it did. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will start investigations and offer an initial interview within 5 working days of receiving a grade 3 case, and agree an action plan. We have seen no evidence the landlord did this in contravention of its policy commitments in respect of the resident’s reports.
The policy says it will complete a risk assessment matrix for all residents to look at their risk of harm and vulnerability. We have seen no evidence the landlord has done this at any time since the resident first reported this issue nearly 2 years ago. This is particularly concerning as the resident has told the landlord on multiple occasions that she is vulnerable and that this matter is negatively affecting her and her family’s health and well-being and significantly impacting their daily lives. The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment matrix means there is no evidence it has given any consideration to the impact of this situation on the resident or how it can support her with this. This has left the resident feeling the landlord does not care.
It was sensible of the landlord to arrange a meeting with the resident on 13 October 2023 to discuss the noise, particularly as she had asked for this in her original report. Despite arranging the appointment, this did not go ahead, as the staff member had left. While understandable that staff changes can occur, the landlord should have told the resident this in advance of her attending its offices. It did not do this, which meant she arrived for the appointment, only to be told this was not going ahead. This meant she had a wasted journey and was left disappointed.
There are significant gaps in the landlord’s records. We have seen mention of at last 13 phone calls, visits and emails between the landlord and the resident from September 2023 to February 2024, but there are no formal records of these. This is not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it will keep accurate records and record all interviews and actions taken. The lack of records has impacted our ability to fully investigate this matter, as we do not know what was discussed or agreed during these contacts. This is a concern and the landlord itself acknowledged its lack of records represented service failure in its stage 2 response.
Between September and December 2023, the resident’s case was dealt with by 3 different staff members. She said on each occasion when the new member of staff contacted her, they were unaware of the issues or previous actions taken. This meant she had to explain things repeatedly and felt the case was “back to square one” each time. This was understandably frustrating for her and meant she spent time and trouble re–explaining the issues on multiple occasions. This highlights the importance of detailed record keeping.
As part of the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had flagged the record keeping failures to the relevant service area, which is positive. However, there were repeated failures by multiple members of staff, and more recent record keeping failures identified later in this report. We have, therefore, made an order for the landlord to deliver training to all staff involved in ASB handling on the process for, and importance of, keeping detailed records in ASB cases.
In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord visited and spoke with the neighbour. While a sensible action to take, this did not happen until late October 2023, 2 months after the resident first reported the issue. This was an unreasonable delay. Again, there are missing records of the landlord’s contact with the neighbour. While we can see reference to visits made and discussions had, we have seen no formal record of these. This has also impacted our ability to fully investigate this matter as we cannot fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions because we do not know exactly what it did or when.
From the records provided, we can see that the landlord contacted the neighbour about their flooring and the dog. The resident said it subsequently gave the neighbour a timescale in which to lay adequate flooring and remove the dog. This was sensible to try to resolve the issues. However, we have seen no record of any follow up with the neighbour to confirm these actions were completed, despite the landlord saying it would. The landlord has told us the dog was removed and new flooring laid, but we do not know when this happened and whether this was communicated to the resident. The lack of updates left the resident feeling let down and ultimately resulted in her escalating her complaint to stage 2 in January 2024.
In her initial report in September 2023 the resident said she believed the noise was caused, or made worse by, the sub-flooring which needed repair as it was creaky. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any steps to investigate this concern, for example by arranging a surveyor’s visit. We have seen evidence that a surveyor visited the neighbour in August 2024 as part of a mutual exchange inspection and that no issues with the floor were noted.
However, this was 11 months after the resident first raised her concern about the sub-floor and was not done in response to her concerns. While the landlord noted there were no issues with the floor during the inspection in August 2024, it did not specifically state that it had checked all areas of flooring throughout the neighbour’s property. This means there is no evidence the landlord properly investigated this issue, which has left the resident feeling let down and that it has not listened to her.
Considering the type of noise the resident reported and that she felt this was made worse by the flooring, it would also have been sensible of the landlord to complete an informal sound test between the properties. While the landlord visited both the resident and the neighbour, we have seen no evidence that it completed or even considered completing this type of test, despite the resident asking it to do so on a number of occasions.
In February 2024 the resident provided recordings of the noise to the landlord, but there is no evidence it listened to them. It would have been sensible for the landlord to try to hear the noise in order to fully assess how best to address it. Despite the resident giving the landlord options to be able to do this (via a sound test and recordings), there is no evidence it did so.
We have made an order for the landlord to investigate the resident’s noise reports by:
1. Inspecting the neighbour’s property to thoroughly assess the condition of the flooring, including the sub-flooring. This inspection should be completed by a surveyor.
2. Completing an informal sound test between the resident and neighbour’s properties. This should include members of landlord staff being in both properties at the same time so it can hear the noise in the resident’s property caused by movement in the neighbour’s property.
3. Sending a written update to the resident confirming the outcome of these visits and what, if any, further actions it will take including a timescale for these to be completed.
The resident said she specifically asked the landlord to send her written updates, rather than phone calls. In ASB cases, it is good practice for landlords to send written updates to confirm its actions and decisions and to avoid any misunderstanding. Despite this, we have only seen evidence of 2 written updates sent to the resident between September 2023 and February 2024, in addition to the complaint responses.
This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it will make monthly contact with residents. The lack of regular updates meant the resident incurred time and trouble chasing updates from the landlord on at least 10 occasions during this period. Despite this, there is little or no evidence of any detailed responses to most of these. This was disappointing for the resident and left her feeling ignored.
The landlord has told us it carried out several unannounced visits to check for noise. This was in line with its ASB policy, which says it may investigate ASB by witnessing the problem directly. However, we have seen no formal record of these visits and there is no evidence the landlord told the resident it had done them. Due to the lack of evidence, we cannot be satisfied the landlord carried out the visits as stated.
The landlord’s ASB policy says diary sheets will be given to residents. For reports of noise nuisance diary sheets are an important evidence gathering tool. They allow the resident to record details of the nuisance to help the landlord identify the frequency and any patterns. This can often help inform its follow on decisions about how to further investigate or resolve the issues.
In this case, we have seen no evidence the landlord ever provided diary sheets to the resident, or even spoke to her about them. This is not in line with its ASB policy. The landlord said it carried out unannounced visits to check for noise but, without details of when the noise was occurring, it had no way of identifying when was the best time to visit so it had the highest chance of witnessing the noise.
The landlord’s ASB policy says mediation must be considered as a remedy in all appropriate cases, and discussed with the complainant. Considering the type of noise the resident reported, mediation would have been a sensible approach to consider. We have seen no evidence the landlord did consider this, or discussed it with the resident at any point. The resident told the landlord in July 2024 that due to the ongoing issues, the situation with the neighbour had escalated and resulted in a heated exchange. The purpose of mediation is to address issues and resolve conflict and, had the landlord considered and implemented it sooner, it may have avoided the situation escalating.
The landlord has told us that, following its investigation, it concluded the noise reported by the resident was reasonable, considering the type of properties, and that no breaches of tenancy had occurred. It said it told the resident this verbally, but we have seen no record of this conversation and the landlord did not confirm it in writing.
Where a landlord concludes its investigation in ASB cases, it is good practice to confirm the outcome in writing. This is particularly important where it concludes the reports do not constitute ASB. The resident can then understand how it has reached this decision and what, if any, follow on actions it will take. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord communicated this conclusion to the resident, which means she has been left not knowing the outcome.
Despite the landlord acknowledging failure in its handling of the resident’s case in the stage 2 response and committing to take further actions, we have seen no evidence that it completed these. Similarly the resident has asked the landlord for updates on at least 12 occasions between the stage 2 response in February 2024 and June 2025. We have no evidence the landlord responded to any of these contacts, which was disappointing for the resident. This has caused her to lose faith in the landlord and she has told us she has lost all hope that it will ever resolve this issue.
The neighbour moved in September 2024 and another tenant moved in following a mutual exchange. The resident has told us the noise is ongoing since the exchange and provided evidence that she has raised this with the landlord on multiple occasions. Despite this, the landlord has told us the resident has not made any further reports of noise since the exchange took place. This is a concern and highlights further poor record keeping practices within the landlord. Its failure to properly record and act on the resident’s more recent reports means the noise issues have been ongoing for nearly 2 years and the resident has told us this has had a significant impact on her health and well-being.
We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the noise in line with its ASB policy, agree an action plan and complete a risk assessment. A written update is to be sent confirming this, including the method and frequency of updates to be provided going forward.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of this matter and apologised. While positive that it did this, there is no evidence it considered any other form of redress, which would have been appropriate considering the failures. Further, the landlord’s handling of the matter after the complaint did not improve, indicating it had not learnt from its previous mistakes. This caused the resident to lose faith in its complaints process and means, rather than helping to resolve the issues, the complaints process has done nothing to put things right for her.
Considering the cumulative effect of the numerous failures highlighted in this report we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour.
We have made orders for a senior member of landlord staff (director level of above) to apologise to the resident and pay her £700 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which significantly affected the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. We have also made an order for the landlord to review the resident’s case to identify what learning it has/will implement to avoid similar failures happening again. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this review to the resident in writing.
The resident has told us that, considering the length of time this matter has been ongoing, she would like the landlord to consider moving her to resolve this. We cannot order the landlord to move the resident, but we have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident confirming her options for re-housing and whether it can support her with a move because of the noise concerns.

Complaint handling

After the resident made her complaint on 16 October 2023, the landlord emailed her 2 weeks later and told her the complaint had been withdrawn as she had not provided her contact details. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time gave examples of issues it could not deal with as complaints and circumstances in which it would not raise a complaint. None of these included not having the relevant contact details for the resident.
While the landlord may not have had all the required information, it did have the resident’s email address. Therefore, it should have sought the missing information to progress the complaint, rather than recording it as withdrawn. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord did not want to address the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said when it received a complaint, it would either be accepted or rejected. In this case, it was disingenuous of the landlord to record the complaint as withdrawn, as this implied the resident had requested this, which was not the case. This amounts to maladministration and was not in line with its complaints policy.
On 31 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to review its decision. It did not reply or take any further action until she had chased this up on 2 more occasions, in November 2023. Only after these further contacts did the landlord reopen and acknowledge the complaint. This meant the resident incurred unnecessary time and trouble progressing the matter. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 39 working days after the complaint was raised. This was significantly over the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time; and equates to a delay of more than 4 weeks. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response in 26 working days, which was over the committed 20 working day response time set out in its policy. The landlord told the resident on 5 February 2024 that it was extending the response deadline to 12 February 2024, due to staff unavailability. While frustrating for the resident, as the landlord told her about the delay and met the extended deadline, this was not a failure.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. While it acknowledged the delay at stage 2 and apologised for this, it did not acknowledge its failures in the handling of the stage 1 complaint. This was disappointing for the resident. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and reflective of the distress and inconvenience (£100) and time and trouble (£100) she experienced, as a result of the landlord’s failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Investigated the resident’s noise reports by:
  1. Inspecting the neighbour’s property to thoroughly assess the condition of the flooring, including the sub-flooring. This inspection should be completed by a surveyor.
  2. Completing an informal sound test between the resident and neighbour’s properties. This should include members of landlord staff being in both properties at the same time so it can hear the noise in the resident’s property caused by movement in the neighbour’s property.
  3. Sending a written update to the resident confirming the outcome of these visits and what, if any, further actions it will take including a timescale for these to be completed.
2. Contacted the resident to discuss the noise in line with its ASB policy, agree an action plan and complete a risk assessment. A written update to be sent confirming this, including the method and frequency updates will be sent going forward.
3. Apologised to the resident for its:
  1. Response to her reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour. This should be from a senior member of staff (director level or above).
  2. Complaint handling.
4. Paid the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 for its response to her reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour.
  2. £200 for its complaint handling.
5. Reviewed the resident’s case to identify what learning it has/will implement to avoid similar failures happening again. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this review to the resident and us, in writing.
6. Written to the resident confirming her options for re-housing and whether it can support her with a move because of the noise concerns.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to all staff involved in ASB handling on the process for and importance of keeping detailed records in ASB cases.