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

MHS Homes Ltd (202233937)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233937

MHS Homes Ltd

24 June 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

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour’s property.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a 1 bedroomed bungalow owned by the landlord since 2003. The resident is elderly and has multiple health conditions.
  2. The resident raised concerns about noise from February 2022 onwards when a new family moved in next door. She complained to the landlord about ongoing noise on 6 March 2023.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 March 2023, rejecting the resident’s complaint. The resident escalated her complaint and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 May 2023. It again rejected her complaint.
  4. The resident asked contacted us in 2023 as the noise was ongoing and having a significant impact on her wellbeing. In a recent update she stated her main concern was the banging of the external rear door during the early hours of the morning which has not changed since 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman usually investigates the landlord’s actions up to the point of its stage 2 response which is the final stage of its internal complaints handling process. However, where, as in this case, the landlord refers to steps it will take following stage 2 response, we consider it is reasonable to investigate the landlord’s follow up actions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour’s property

  1. In late February 2022 a new family moved into the property next door to the resident. During the following weeks the resident reporting radio noise, drilling noise and banging to the landlord. The landlord initially advised the resident daytime DIY work was not unreasonable particularly as the family had only just moved into the property.
  2. On 29 March 2022 the landlord spoke to the neighbours who denied making any excessive noise. The landlord informed the resident of her neighbour’s response and told her unless it had evidence it could not take action. The resident agreed to keep a note of the noise and provided the landlord with diary sheets on 3 April 2022. The diary sheets have not been provided as part of the landlord’s evidence.
  3. On 26 July 2022 the landlord visited the neighbours with a police community support officer. It informed the resident it had found no evidence to support the reports of noise nuisance. It had nevertheless informed the neighbour it would consider action if noise nuisance was established and the resident agreed to continue gathering evidence.
  4. In August and September 2022, the resident reported doors banging with such force it caused mirrors and the glass in her shower unit to shake. She stated due to ill health she had not been able to continue with recording information on diary sheets.
  5. On 22 September 2022 the landlord completed an anti-social behaviour (ASB) risk assessment. It noted the resident was reporting worsening noise on a daily basis. The police had been informed and had previously spoken to other residents when she reported it to them. The resident believed she was being deliberately targeted and her mental health was “extremely affected” by the noise.
  6. On 12 October 2022 the resident called the landlord reporting ongoing banging by her neighbours. The landlord stated it needed evidence to take action. The resident again said she was not always able to record the events due to ill health. The resident stated the landlord had agreed to call her every week for an update, but she had not been called that week or the previous week. The landlord informed the resident the relevant staff member was on holiday until 17 October 2022 and would call upon their return.
  7. On 16 November 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and suggested mediation to try and resolve the noise issues with her neighbours. She refused as she believed things had “gone too far”. She again stated she had not been able to complete diary sheets due to ill health. She stated doors were often slammed and raised concern the landlord had only spoken to female tenant rather than the male whom she believed was causing the noise.
  8. On 28 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming it had no tangible evidence to conclude ASB was taking place next door. It had spoken to the resident, visited the neighbours with a police officer and inspected the property. The resident had been unable to complete the diary sheets and had confirmed she did not wish to involve the Council’s Environmental Protection Team (EPT). Due to a lack of evidence, the landlord confirmed it was closing the matter.
  9. On 4 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord raising concern about potential noise from kitchen/bathroom replacement work due to start at her neighbour’s property. She asked the landlord to confirm when the work was taking place. It refused to provide any further information as it did not relate to her property. The landlord informed the resident she could consider a move under its mutual exchange scheme, but she felt it was unfair to expect her to move when she was not causing the noise problem.
  10. In a further call with the resident on 10 January 2023 the landlord again referred to its offer of mediation and to involve the EPT which she had refused. The landlord reiterated it could not take action without evidence which it said the resident “had refused to provide”. It again stated it could not share information about any work being carried out in her neighbour’s property.
  11. The evidence provided by the landlord to our investigation includes diary sheets between 18 February 2023 and 19 March 2023 in which the resident refers to doors banging day and night, leaving her feeling “tormented”. She reported being woken by banging doors at 2am and 4am. She mentioned trying to record some of the noises so she could provide the evidence to the landlord.
  12. The evidence refers to an ASB risk assessment dated 3 March 2023. A copy of the assessment has not been provided.
  13. On 6 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had spoken to the Council about the noise diaries. She had been told to ask the landlord to escalate her case to a more senior officer due to the lack of action. She stated the Council did not provide recording equipment and would not intervene until the landlord had taken all possible steps to resolve the matter. She had been referred for mental health support and again stated she was woken up between 2am -4am when her neighbour went to work. As she now had provided diaries, she hoped the landlord would take her case seriously.
  14. In its stage 1 response dated 10 March 2023 the landlord stated it had visited her neighbours together with the police but found no evidence to support her allegations. It said the resident had been asked again on 16 November 2022 to provide diary sheets which had not been provided. It had also offered to mediate but she has refused the proposal. It had since re-opened the case and asked the resident to provide the information it previously request so it could consider further action. It was satisfied it had taken steps to investigate the resident’s reports but found no evidence of noise.
  15. On 14 March 2023 the resident called again reporting the male tenant next door was the cause of the noise problems and could the landlord speak to him.
  16. On 17 March 2023 the landlord visited the neighbour and spoke to the female tenant. She confirmed her partner was usually up early for work between 3am-5am but did not cause noise and no other neighbours had complained. The landlord advised her to be “mindful of their noise” but she insisted her partner was quiet to avoid waking her up early in the morning.
  17. On 24 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord, stating the stage 1 decision was wrong. She had sent in diary sheets and explained the effect of the noise upon her, but the landlord had barely spoken to her neighbour who was “making her life hell”. She stated matters had gone too far for mediation and wanted the neighbours to receive a warning if the banging did not stop as it has re-started once its officer had left her neighbours property following a recent visit.
  18. On 27 March 2023 the resident called the landlord again to report banging between 2am-4am and had still not heard anything following her escalation request. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 3 April 2023.
  19. Following reports of ongoing issues with the neighbours the landlord called the resident on 18 April 2023. It explained without further evidence it would be difficult to prove noise nuisance. She stated she had no way to record the noise as she did not have a mobile phone. The landlord stated it would look into other options and would consider whether any steps could be taken to soundproof the adjoining walls. It intended to contact its repairs department for further information.
  20. On 20 April 2023 the resident called the landlord raising concerns about the possibility of builders attending her property to soundproof her walls, stating the landlord should carry out any necessary work to her neighbour’s property. She also indicated she was hoping to move using the mutual exchange scheme.
  21. On 27 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to cancel a visit it had arranged for 3 May 2023, stating it should be visiting her neighbour who was causing the noise. She stated if the landlord wished to rearrange the appointment, she wanted a family member to be in attendance as a witness.
  22. In its stage 2 response dated 3 May 2023 the landlord confirmed it had now received the resident’s diary sheets. It was also exploring the use of recording equipment with her so it could gain a better understanding of the noise issues. Its officer had also visited the neighbour. The landlord referred to a recent call when it had discussed a potential move to sheltered accommodation and its officer could arrange for the resident to visit a sheltered scheme. It upheld its stage 1 response as it believed its officers had investigated her reports and she had declined mediation. It would continue to work with the resident and its officer would contact the resident by 17 May 2023 with an update regarding recording equipment and the visit to the sheltered scheme.

Action following the landlord’s stage 2 response

  1. The resident continued to report noise nuisance and on 16 May 2023 the landlord completed an application to install noise recording equipment at the property. It tried to contact the resident that day, but the resident was unavailable. In a follow up call on 19 May 2023 the resident stated she did not want to move to a sheltered housing scheme unless it was to another bungalow as she was fearful of further noise issues if she moved to a flat. The landlord explained bungalows were in short supply. She had not yet bid on any properties and was concerned about moving costs. She continued to provide diary sheets reporting door banging between 2am-4am.
  2. The evidence shows the resident called the landlord on 31 May 2023 and 6 July 2023 asking for an update regarding the recording equipment. In an internal email dated 10 July 2023 the landlord noted it had applied for the installation of noise recording equipment but “unfortunately this is quite a lengthy process”. There is no evidence to show it shared this information with the resident at that time. Its surveyor also attended the neighbouring property and concluded no action could be taken to improve soundproofing between the properties.
  3. In a letter to the resident dated 13 September 2023 the landlord stated its request to install noise recording equipment was “with management to be reviewed”. It offered mediation again and confirmed it was not taking any further action.
  4. The resident chased the landlord about the recording equipment again on 22 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Her sister also chased up the issue with the landlord on her behalf on 20 June 2024.
  5. During a call with us in June 2025 the resident stated the recording equipment was installed in November 2024. We have no information about the outcome of the recordings. The resident stated the landlord has recently suggested one of its officers will slam a door in her neighbour’s property while another will sit in her property to assess the extent of the noise. The resident was concerned this would not fully represent the noise heard during the early hours of the morning.
  6. The landlord’s ASB policy states it takes ASB seriously and aims to balance enforcement action and intervention with prevention. It adopts a supportive approach when dealing with victims and will be flexible in its approach to managing incidents. It states it would also work with other agencies to try and resolve matters. It will risks assess cases and contact the complainant within 72 hours to discuss and the perpetrator within 5 working days. It noted complaints about everyday living situations which are not deliberately intended to cause nuisance/annoyance are not generally considered ASB. This would include household noise during reasonable hours.
  7. It is not possible to conclude the landlord has complied with its ASB policy throughout its dealings with the resident as various documents have not been provided as part of the landlord’s evidence. For example, the April 2022 diary sheets and details of the landlord’s assessment of the recorded information and its follow up communication with the resident together with the 2023 ASB risk assessment.
  8. Similarly, the evidence does not include the conclusions reached by the landlord based on the information contained in the ASB risk assessment undertaken in September 2022. There is no reference to an action plan or details of its next steps which could have included, for example, proposing mediation at an early stage, assessing the quality of soundproofing of the properties, inspecting of internal/external doors to assess whether work was required to dampen noise when they are closed.
  9. There is also no evidence to show it signposted the resident to wider support services in relation to her mental health concerns or considered other ways to record noise if her health was preventing her from doing so. There is also no evidence to show it shared the outcome of the risk assessment with the resident and discussed with her what action it did/did not intend to take following the assessment. Similarly, there is no evidence of the landlord returning the resident’s call in October 2022 which is inconsistent with its policy to support complainants in the resident’s situation.
  10. The evidence shows the landlord took some steps to try and resolve the issues between the resident and her neighbour, for example, by visiting the neighbour with a community support officer. It also suggested mediation in November 2022. It is unclear from the evidence why this was not suggested sooner particularly as we consider early intervention would be consistent with the landlord’s policy to prevent ASB where possible. It is not clear from the evidence what information was provided to the resident regarding how the mediation process worked or how the landlord would support the resident through the process taking into account her reported health vulnerabilities.
  11. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered the possibility of installing noise recording equipment in November 2022, even though it was informed by the resident on 3 occasions she had been unable to complete manual records due to ill health. Its failure to consider this option at this stage is inconsistent with its policy to adopt a flexible approach when supporting complainants. Similarly, its reference to the resident “refusing” to provide diary sheets in January 2023 was insensitive given her reported ill health.
  12. While the landlord took some active steps to consider investigating soundproofing and recording in April 2023, the delay in doing so was unreasonable given the reported impact on the resident.
  13. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses went some way to put things right by stating it would re-open her case and work with her to try and find solutions for example, moving to a sheltered accommodation scheme. However, neither response recognised delay on its part or its failure to assess the impact of the resident’s ill health upon her ability to provide evidence on an ongoing basis. While the stage 2 response refers to providing an update regarding recording equipment within a few weeks, the landlord should have also set out the likely timescale for installation of the equipment. Its failure to manage expectations is unreasonable.
  14. The evidence shows there was a significant delay in installing the recording equipment and the resident chased the landlord on a regular basis for updates. This is unreasonable and inconsistent with the landlord’s policy to support complainants who report ASB.
  15. In view of the above, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour’s property. An order for compensation is made below which has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance for cases where there are failures which adversely affect the resident which have not been fully acknowledged by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour’s property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified above. The landlord should provide us with a copy of the letter.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident the sum of £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and policy failings.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must write to the resident setting out its strategy to manage her ongoing reports of noise from the neighbour’s property. The landlord should provide us with a copy of the letter. This letter should include (but is not limited to) the following:
    1. An assessment of the noise recorded by its equipment from November 2024 onwards and whether it recommends any further periods of recording giving reasons for its views.
    2. Whether its surveyor’s inspection included consideration of noise dampening adjustments to any of the neighbour’s internal/external doors. If so, the outcome of the surveyor’s assessment and if not, whether it intends to re-instruct its surveyor to assess such issues.
    3. If it intends to tests noise levels by placing an officer in each property, an explanation as to how it intends to replicate the quiet conditions between 2am-4am when the resident reports the most significant noise from the neighbour’s property.