Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202228164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228164

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

26 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 reports of noise transference.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a 1-bedroom flat. The resident lives in a supported housing block and the landlord is aware of her mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident first contacted the landlord about noise in October 2022 after a new neighbour had moved into the flat directly above her. She told the landlord that the noise was made worse by the laminate flooring put down by the neighbour after moving in. On 23 October and 18 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord as no contact had been made about the noise issue she had raised.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and said:
1. that it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint
2. it was investigating the issue with the relevant internal teams to try and resolve the case in an amicable way
3. the matter had been referred to its Tenancy Support team to provide an interpretation of the clauses within the neighbour’s tenancy agreement
4. as part of its void process, it does not lay flooring down in any room except for the bathroom and kitchen
5. the complaint was not upheld, and it would update the resident once it had heard back from the relevant teams
6. it would offer £25 as a goodwill gesture due to the delay in sending its stage 1 complaint response
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 December 2022. On 9 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, it said:
1. that it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint
2. it understood there was ongoing noise transference from the neighbour who had installed laminate flooring
3. the issue should have been raised with its Tenancy Support team who deal with antisocial behaviour (ASB)
4. it had contacted the resident’s neighbour about the flooring, and they had offered to lay carpet down but was told to wait for a surveyor to inspect the property first
5. its Tenancy Support team visited the resident on 11 July 2023 where she was told to record evidence via a noise app and the neighbour had been recommended to cover their floor with carpet or a big rug
6. the complaint was upheld, and it offered £440 total compensation for the delay, lack of service and poor complaint handling
Following the stage 2 complaint response the resident told the landlord that the issue was still ongoing. The landlord told the resident in October 2023 that it would speak with the neighbour and update her. In May 2024 the landlord told the resident it would update her on the progress of the case.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 18 August 2023. On 12 March 2025 the resident told us that the noise transference is still an issue, and she had received no updates on this since May 2024. The resident would like the landlord to pay a higher amount of compensation and ensure that the noise transference issue is resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

It is noted that since May 2024 the resident has had further issues of noise such as loud music and musical instruments being played at unsociable hours. However, this investigation has focussed on the issue of noise transference raised in the resident’s formal complaint which was responded to by the landlord in August 2023.
This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and put things right prior to our involvement. As the resident’s recent concerns about an escalation in the level of noise from her neighbour has not been subject to a formal complaint, this should be addressed in the first instance through the landlord’s complaint procedure. If at the end of the complaint process the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s recent actions, she can refer this issue to us as a new case.

Reports of noise transference

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is committed to empowering residents to resolve low level disputes themselves and has a separate neighbour nuisance policy. Its neighbour nuisance policy sets out that the landlord will:
1. provide appropriate support
2. minimise risk by providing clear safety guidance and carrying out vulnerability and risk assessments where appropriate
3. advise residents on how to approach the other party – including providing a leaflet with guidance and information on how to deal with neighbour disputes
4. if one of the parties involved is vulnerable or feels threatened by the other party, it will deal with the case under its ASB policy
The landlord’s initial actions in this case were poor. The raised the issue of noise transference on 19 October 2022, chased this on 23 October 2022 and eventually raised a complaint about the issue on 18 November 2022 as she had received no reply. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident was unfair and caused the resident distress at what was already a distressing time.
As the issue raised was assessed as ‘low level’ by the landlord, and the resident had said that she did not consider the noise to be ASB, we would expect to see that the landlord followed its neighbour dispute policy. However, there is no evidence to show that it did. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered carrying out any vulnerability or risk assessments as part of its initial actions. It is unclear what, if any, policy or process the landlord used. Not following its own neighbourhood dispute policy meant there was a lack of clear direction in the landlord’s actions, and this caused the resident some distress.
The landlord did take some proactive steps to try and resolve the issue after receiving the resident’s complaint despite the failure to follow its own policies. It called the resident on 7 December 2022 and spoke to the neighbour on 8 December 2022 to gain more insight into the issue. On 15 December 2022, the landlord told the resident that its Tenancy Support team would review the neighbour’s tenancy agreement and update her on the next steps. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour on 15 December 2022, stating that it had arranged a surveyor to visit to inspect the flooring as the noise transference may breach their tenancy agreement.
Even though the landlord had set out some steps it would take on 15 December 2022, it did not update the resident. Nor is there evidence to show that it took the action it said it would. Such as, arranging a surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s property or getting an interpretation of the tenancy agreement. The resident had to contact the landlord again on 13 February 2023 because the issue was not resolved. The landlord’s lack of action for 2 months was unreasonable and made the resident more distressed.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 12 April 2023, as she had not received any update following her email on 13 February 2023. Internal communication shows that the landlord was unaware of the case still being open. One employee apologised as they believed a response had already been provided and another employee stating, “I was not aware the matter was still in progress.”
This failure to effectively manage the resident’s case meant that 6 months after the resident’s initial report, the case was no further forward. This highlights the landlord’s lack of clear record keeping and failure to manage the resident’s case effectively, in line with its own policies and procedures. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a housing management service, particularly in areas of higher risk such as this one, which involved vulnerable residents. The failure to manage the case with good record keeping meant that the landlord lacked knowledge about the case. This prevented the landlord from taking effective action at an early stage and left the resident feeling distressed and let down by its service.
Between 17 and 21 April 2023 the landlord liaised internally about the case. It said that at the time of the stage 1 complaint response it had requested a surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s flooring. However, this was not done and so another surveyor was requested to carry out an urgent site visit to try and bring the matter to a close. It also confirmed that the resident had tried to talk to the neighbour to resolve the issue herself, but that this had not worked.
The landlord’s neighbourhood dispute policy says that if a resident is unable to resolve the issue by direct communication, then it would refer both parties to an independent mediation service. However, this was not done. While mediation may not have resolved the issue, it is unreasonable for the landlord not to have followed its own policy or consider specific actions that may have helped resolve the situation. This was a missed opportunity to get both parties together and avoid escalation.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord’s Tenancy Support team highlighted a clause within the tenancy agreements about flooring. This clause said that residents must keep floors covered with an appropriate floor covering and not lay any floor covering which allows the transmission of any sound, vibration, or noise which causes nuisance to others. The landlord said that it would open an ASB case and send an operative to inspect the neighbour’s flooring.
However, the landlord failed to follow through on its commitments. It did not update the resident or take any action on the noise issue. On 30 June 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The Tenancy Support team said internally that it had not taken any action, as it thought a different team was dealing with the issue. This again showed the landlord’s failure to keep clear records and poor case management. Eight months after the resident’s first reports, the landlord had not sent a surveyor, considered whether the neighbour had breached the tenancy agreement or helped the resident alleviate the noise issue. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
On 6 July 2023, the Tenancy Support team communicated internally with the other teams. It found that a surveyor was supposed to check the flooring for a possible tenancy breach, but the visit never happened. Additionally, the neighbour had offered to lay carpet, but the landlord told them to wait until the surveyor inspected. It’s unclear why the landlord stopped the neighbour from laying the carpet, which might have solved the problem at an early stage. The lack of coherent decision making and a clear plan of action hindered the landlord’s ability to effectively deal with the case. This increased the distress felt by the resident.
The next day, the landlord told the resident that a surveyor would be attending the neighbour’s property to inspect the flooring. It said that it would update the resident once this had happened. The landlord sent the resident an ASB action plan and explained that the case should have been raised as an ASB case after the resident’s first contact.
We understand that the resident did not see the noise issue as ASB, rather as normal household noise made louder by the flooring. Normally, the landlord would treat this as a ‘low level dispute’. However, the resident lived in supported housing, and she told the landlord that she was vulnerable with a history of depression. She said that quiet enjoyment of her home was vital to her mental health. Therefore, in line with its neighbourhood dispute policy, it was fair for the landlord to deal with the case under its ASB policy.
The time taken to raise the ASB case was unreasonable. It was 9 months before the landlord began to use its policies to assist the resident. Even though the landlord raised an ASB case fairly, the action plan put in place was not suited to the noise transference issue. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will agree an action plan with the ‘victim’, but there is no evidence that the action plan was discussed with the resident.
The action plan provided seemed to be a generic plan for all types of ASB. For example, it mentioned reporting issues to the police and obtaining disclosure from police for incidents reported. These actions were not ones that were suited to the issue of noise transference. The landlord also did not explain to the resident why it would use its ASB policy and what specific actions it would be able to take to help the resident even if she provided evidence via its noise app.
The failure to manage expectations, alongside the failure to provide a more specific action plan was unreasonable. This also led to the resident not supplying evidence for the ASB case, believing that it was raised unnecessarily. The ASB was closed on 24 July 2023 as the Tenancy Support team had not received any noise app recordings. The failure of the landlord to discuss the action plan with the resident and manage expectations caused further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did carry out a visit to the resident and the neighbour on 11 July 2023. As part of this visit it conducted a noise test and told the neighbour to cover his flooring with carpet or big rugs. It said that a surveyor would visit to make a final decision in the case. While it was good that the landlord conducted a visit, there was no further progress with the case as it still required a surveyor to visit the neighbour’s property. This was the same decision that had been made in November 2022 after the resident’s first reports. The lack of progress in the case continued to cause the resident significant distress.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 9 August 2023, the landlord told the resident to capture the noise on the noise app so as it could act in the case. However, it did not tell the resident how long she would be required to make these recordings and what action the landlord would take if the recordings were provided. This meant that the resident was expected to actively record the noise from her neighbour’s property for the foreseeable future until the case was closed. Additionally, the landlord did not explain what value there was in the resident providing recordings of normal household noise. This was unfair and did not manage the resident’s expectations.
On 17 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that it had still not taken any action to resolve the matter. She said that she was unhappy that the case was being looked as ASB, as the case was about noise transference. This shows that the landlord did not clearly explain the reason why it was using its ASB policy. This caused the resident confusion and inconvenience in chasing up the matter.
On 18 August, the landlord held an internally discussion about the case. The Tenancy Support team said that it could not do anymore with the case. It said that while the tenancy agreement did mention about the need for flooring that did not transmit noise, it had conducted a visit, and no noise transference was found. It said that in its judgement the neighbour had done everything possible to mitigate the noise such as laying lots of rugs and installing underlay.
While this internal discussion took place, the landlord never relayed this information to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord has ever told the resident that it considered the issue of noise transference to be closed because of the actions taken by the neighbour. The failure to be open and transparent about its decision making caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 12 September 2023 about the noise issue. On 11 October 2023 the landlord replied to say that it would contact the neighbour and ensure that the floors were adequately covered. It said that this would take place before the end of October 2023, and it would update the resident to ensure a resolution had been reached. Despite these commitments no update was provided by the landlord at the end of October 2023. This was further evidence that the landlord’s communication was poor and that it did not do what it said it would on a consistent basis. This continued to cause the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
In March 2024 a surveyor visited the resident’s property and told the resident to discuss with her neighbour about putting carpets down. This was discussed internally in April 2024 when the landlord asked the surveyor to attend the property again because of the ongoing complaint about noise transference. The landlord told the surveyor that the tenancy agreement mentioned that floors must be covered with appropriate flooring and that the flooring should not allow transmission of any sound which could cause a nuisance. However, there is no evidence of any further visits or action taken by the landlord or the surveyor. The landlord’s failure to take any action or be clear with the resident on what it was able to do continued to cause significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident chased the landlord on 30 April 2024 for an update to the 11 October 2023 email. She summarised the issues of noise transference and asked for carpet to be put down in her neighbour’s flat. The landlord responded on 6 May 2024 and said that it was sorry that it had not responded sooner and that it would get back to the resident by 9 May 2024 with an update. This update did not happen which is further evidence of poor communication, and a lack of accountability by the landlord.
In the 2022 Spotlight on Noise report, the Ombudsman explains that it is unfair to both the resident making the complaint and the resident being complained about for the noise to be treated as something it is not. And it is harder for the landlord to make consistent and reasonable decisions if it does not have the right framework for all types of noise reports. This approach entrenches disputes and mismanages expectations.
In this case, the landlord’s actions were confused, and the expectations of the resident were not managed. A contributing factor to this was the lack of a clear policy which dealt with noise transference. The landlord failed throughout to confirm what it could realistically do about the noise considering it was mostly noise from flooring. The lack of clarity and explanation of the limited options available was unfair and caused significant distress to the resident.
Throughout the case there was a continuing theme of whether the neighbour had breached their tenancy agreement by laying down flooring that may transmit noise. The landlord said on multiple occasions that it needed to gain clarity on this, yet as late as April 2024 (18 months after the first report) the landlord was still in a position where it did not know or needed advice on whether the neighbour had installed flooring that did not align with the tenancy agreement. This was not only unfair to the resident, but also to the neighbour who was left in a position of uncertainty because of the landlord’s actions.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. take action promptly
2. follow its policies
3. manage the resident’s expectations
4. keep good records for effective case management
5. communicate effectively with the resident
6. take action that it had committed to taking
When considering all the circumstances of the case, this amounts to severe maladministration. This is because there were a series of significant failings which undermined the relationship between the landlord and the resident. This happened over a prolonged period, and it did not take learning from failings found in its complaint responses. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but showed a lack of urgency in dealing with the matter. The landlord failed to effectively manage the case which increased the impact to the resident who was known to suffer from mental health conditions. Finally, the issue itself is still outstanding.
We have considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation totalling £300 for the service failings was reasonable. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a significant impact to the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord’s offer to be fair given the extent of the failings we have found. Given the significant impact on the resident a payment of £1,000 is a fair figure to recognise the distress this caused, and the time taken by the resident to consistently chase the matter with the landlord. This is including the £300 it had already offered for the service failings.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where the landlord needs additional time to provide a response it will tell the resident and provide regular updates.
The resident raised her complaint on 18 November 2022. This was not responded to by the landlord until 19 December 2022. The time taken of 21 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process was unreasonable. The landlord failed to tell the resident it would need additional time to respond, and it did not provide any regular updates on when to expect a response.
This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience which is evidenced by an email sent to the landlord on 15 December 2022 where the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 December 2022, she chased this on:
1. 19 January 2023
2. 13 February 2023
3. 12 April 2023
4. 27 April 2023
5. 6 July 2023
A stage 2 complaint response was provided on 9 August 2023 which was 158 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord did not tell the resident about these delays. It did not keep the resident regularly updated or provide our details as set out in the Complaint Handling Code. This was unreasonable and caused significant inconvenience for the resident.
In all the circumstances, the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration. The landlord did offer £140 in its stage 2 complaint response for the delay in its complaint handling. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure that had an adverse impact on the resident then a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Given the length of delay, and the time taken by the resident to chase the landlord for a response to the complaint the landlord’s offer of £140 does not fairly recognise the impact caused.
We consider a payment of £450 including the £140 already offered is fair. This is a proportionate remedy to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, in addition to the time and trouble the resident took chasing the landlord for a response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident from its senior leader responsible for housing.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,450, broken down as:
  1. £1,000 (inclusive of the £300 offered by the landlord at stage 2) for the landlord’s handling of the noise transference issue
  2. £450 (inclusive of the £140 offered by the landlord at stage 2) for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns around noise transference and her more recent concerns about loud music from the neighbour’s flat.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is to provide a specific and detailed action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman to show what steps it will take to help the resident. This should include, but is not limited to:
1. a point of contact for the resident and a communication plan which sets out how and when the landlord will provide updates to the resident
2. the timescales involved in any actions
3. the type of evidence that the resident must provide and how regularly this should be provided
Within 6 weeks the landlord should review its offer of training for staff involved in:
1. handling noise reports – it should consider whether refresher training is needed on how to identify the types of noise reports and how different types of noise require different approaches.
2. complaint handling – it should consider whether refresher training is needed on how deal with complaints promptly, in line with the Complaint Handling Code.