The Guinness Partnership Limited (202330750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330750

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

04 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports of noise transference at his property and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy, which began on 10 March 2022. He moved to the property under a management transfer arranged by the landlord, which is a housing association. He lived in a 1 bedroomed basement flat. The landlord had a record on its system that the resident was vulnerable due to his mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2022. He said he was unhappy that it had moved him to a property where he did not want to be.
On 11 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He told it that he had moved to temporary housing due to a noise transference issue from the flat above him, that was impacting on his health.
Between 12 July 2022 and 26 July 2022 there was further communication between the landlord and resident. It provided him with information on his housing options. He told it the management transfer had “seriously damaged his health”, it was difficult for him to access his support network, and he made a further report of the noise transference issue.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022. He said he wanted to raise a complaint with it about the noise transference issue he had experienced. He said he wanted it to treat this as “a standalone” complaint and it had “purposely moved” him to the property despite it knowing about the issue.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 August 2022. It said the noise transference issue would need investigating by its “assets department” first. If he was still unhappy after this, he could raise a complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to provide him with temporary housing on 4 August 2022. It responded to him on 8 August 2022 and said:
1. it was unable to do this, but it would engage with his neighbour to investigate the noise issue further.
2. it would arrange for its surveyor to inspect his property.
3. it would like him to complete a noise diary over a 28-day period.
4. he should contact his doctor to discuss the impact on his health, or it could complete a safeguarding referral on his behalf.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 August 2022. It said:
1. it would not be offering him another management transfer.
2. it would deal with the ASB allegations he had made under its ASB policy.
3. “that everyday noises may be unbearable to him but may not be ASB or noise nuisance.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2022. He asked that it considered the issue as an ASB case, that the noise was “industrial” and he had “suicidal thoughts” due to where he had moved to. It completed a welfare check the following day due to the resident’s comments and opened an ASB case about the noise issue on 25 August 2022.
The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property, on 25 August 2022 and 13 September 2022. Its surveyors assessed repair issues to his property and the noise transference issue from the flat above him.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 October 2022. He asked it to raise a complaint about the noise issue and said it was “disingenuous in the extreme” and a “breach of agreements made”, that it had moved him to a property with “severe noise transference issues”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 acknowledgement on 24 October 2022. It said it had noted the concerns he had raised and aimed to respond by 3 November 2022.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022. It provided him with a timeline of events and said:
1. it did not uphold his complaint, in terms of being moved to a property with severe noise transference issues, or the property not being as expected.
2. he had first contacted it about a noise transference issue on 1 August 2022.
3. it had reviewed its records from 2009 and there had been no complaints about the issue from previous residents of the property.
4. it was unable to issue its complaint response on 3 November 2022, as it took longer than expected to review its records.
5. he had raised “multiple concerns” about being moved to the property and believed he could have reported the noise issue sooner.
6. it would not revisit its management transfer decision.
7. a manager had reviewed its surveyor’s report from 25 August 2022 and disagreed with its recommendations. It recommended that he contact the local authority’s noise team for further advice and arrange for noise monitoring equipment. However, it accepted it should have clarified this sooner and offered him £40 compensation due to this.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 4 November 2022. It sent its stage 2 acknowledgement to him on 9 November 2022.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 30 November 2022. It said:
1. his neighbour’s tenancy agreement did not have a clause about what type of flooring they could install, so it could not take any enforcement action against them.
2. the noise from the flat above him was not classified as ASB, which it said he agreed with.
3. it was unable to transfer the budget it did not use at his previous property for noise insulation work. This was because its budget for this work was used in “extreme ASB situations” and the issue he was currently experiencing did not meet the threshold for this type of work.
4. had it been aware there had been a long-term noise issue at his property, it would not have offered him it.
5. there will always be a level of noise transference due to the nature of its stock. It had investigated the issue and had no concerns of neighbours making excessive noise.
6. it had recommended that he contact the local authority’s noise nuisance team so it could measure the noise using specialist equipment, but no evidence about this had been sent to it from the local authority.
7. its surveyor’s recommendation did not meet the threshold for the installation of sound insulation to the flat above him. It had “re-examined” this decision and found it was correct, although its surveyor could have explained the process better.
8. it had considered the correspondence he had sent it, and it believed this showed he was unable to accept its decision on the issue and continued to make reports of severe noise transference when there was no evidence of this.
9. it found no evidence that it had been gaslighting him and it had made every attempt to resolve the situation at his previous address including providing him with a home loss payment.
10. it had completed extensive checks on his property to ensure no noise nuisance had ever been recorded in the property, and its staff had gone “over and above” to support him.
11. having reviewed the evidence there were no extenuating circumstances for it to use discretion to award him medical priority for rehousing or offer a management transfer. It provided him with his housing options.
12. although he had said he felt isolated at the property, he was still within the same borough, and it was not an unreasonable distance to travel to access his support network.
13. it had raised a safeguarding case because of his comments about suicidal thoughts. It may call the police and emergency services every time he makes such a statement and that those services may detain him under the mental health act should emergency services be called out persistently.
14. it was not reasonable that it should pay for the cost of flooring in another property, should he complete a mutual exchange.
15. it was “vexatious” that he had threatened to cancel a mutual exchange and carry on complaining and tried to force it to pay for flooring in another property. It would deal with his comments in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy, which could put any mutual exchange at risk.
16. it would not be installing sound insulation in the property above him, but it would make a small goodwill gesture to his neighbour towards the cost of this.
17. it provided him with a copy of its unacceptable behaviour policy as, his “continual and persistent communication” not to accept its decision had caused its staff to feel harassed and this was not acceptable behaviour.

Post internal complaint process

The landlord installed sound insulated flooring to the property above the resident on 27 July 2023. He moved out of his property sometime in November 2024, under a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

This service has previously determined another complaint raised by the resident under case reference 202209685. In this he said that an issue of noise transference at his previous property was relevant to his move to the property that is the subject of this investigation. He said that his mental health had been worsened by this move and the “severe noise transference”. This was contrary to an agreement from the landlord to resolve the issue by moving him to this property. As the issue of noise transference at his new home was only raised with the landlord 4 months after his tenancy started, this investigation has considered events from this point in time and the landlord’s responses.
The resident has told this service that he considered the landlord had breached its contract, in moving him to his property. However, this is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider, and such matters are legal issues which are better suited to a court to decide.
The resident told this Service he felt the landlord had failed to consider the Equalities Act 2010 when it offered him his property. However, this matter was not brought to the attention of the landlord as part of this complaint and as such we are unable to consider this issue. However, we can look at how the landlord handled the noise transference issue and whether it acted fairly, based on its duties and policies.
In his communication the resident has also referenced how the situation has impacted his health. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord gave due regard for the resident’s health conditions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference at his property and antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition of ASB from the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which is conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that reports of ASB “due to different lifestyles or every-day living situations which are not intended to cause nuisance or annoyance are not generally considered as ASB. If the behaviour is persistent and deliberate and is found to be having a harmful impact on a person or they are at risk or potentially at risk then it will investigate the matter, as ASB in line with this policy.” Its response will be informed by the level of risk involved in the case. It will agree a timescale for keeping complainants informed of progress with the case and provide appropriate support and advice.
The resident contacted the landlord soon after his tenancy began, as he was unhappy it had moved him somewhere he did not want to be. On 28 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that it should have identified and told him of the noise transference issues before he moved into the property. The evidence does not show that it was aware of a noise transference issue at his property, before he reported it to the landlord on 11 July 2022. As part of its complaint response, it stated that it did check its records, which showed it had not received any previous reports of a noise transference issue at the property. This was reasonable as social landlords have limited resources which they need to use for the benefit of all their residents.
The resident told the landlord on 4 August 2022 he was “in a constant state of misery” and felt that due to “extenuating” circumstances it should move him from the property. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2022 to inform him it was unable to move him to temporary housing, due to the noise issue. However, it said it would investigate the issue further, provided him with a noise diary and said it would engage with his neighbour as well. This was a reasonable response and demonstrates it supported him and gathered information on the issue.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 August 2022. It said it would deal with his reports of noise transference under its ASB policy. It told him “that everyday noises may be unbearable to him but may not be ASB or noise nuisance.” This was a reasonable response, in line with its ASB policy and demonstrates it was trying to manage his expectations on the issue.
The landlord first contacted the resident’s neighbour on 13 August 2022. The neighbour told it they had laminate flooring in their flat, but the noise issue was not deliberate and were happy to work with the landlord to find a solution to the problem. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered offering mediation at this point. The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 guidance recommends use of mediation as an informal intervention tool, as an effective way of resolving issues such as noise complaints.
The evidence shows that the neighbour’s tenancy agreement did not prevent them installing laminate flooring, so the landlord could not make them remove it. Its stage 2 complaint response offered the resident’s neighbour a “goodwill” payment towards replacing the flooring. This was reasonable from the landlord, and showed it was taking proactive action to try and remedy the noise issue the resident had experienced. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted his neighbour when he reported the issue on 11 July 2022. This caused him detriment as its failure to do so delayed its investigation into the issue.
The resident asked the landlord on 25 August 2022 if it could transfer the budget it had for sound insulation works at his previous property to address the current issue he faced. Despite him twice asking this again, it did not provide him with an answer. This would likely have caused the resident distress. Although it did respond on this matter in its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable to have clarified this at an earlier stage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022. He said he wanted it to escalate the noise transference issue to a formal complaint, as he believed the property had “major structural” issues and it was “highly likely” it knew of these issues. It responded to him the same day and said its surveyor was “qualified to assess subsidence.” It asked that he allow its surveyor to attend so it could provide a report on the issue. This was a reasonable response from the landlord to allow it to investigate the matter as a service request.
The landlord opened an ASB case about the resident’s noise transference reports on 25 August 2022. This was a reasonable step so that it could decide if the noise issue was ASB or not, under its ASB policy. However, there is no evidence that it assessed the risk involved and it did not agree a timescale for keeping the resident informed about the progress of the case, as outlined in its ASB policy. This disadvantaged him, as it failed to clearly explain to him what it could and could not do. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided him with a timescale, along with the actions it was going to take to establish if the issue was ASB or noise nuisance.
The landlord told the resident on 17 November 2022 that it did not consider the noise issue to be ASB. However, its records show that the ASB case remained open. As it did not consider the issue to be ASB, it would have been reasonable for it to have written to him to close the case. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion, as there was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s actions around the management of its ASB case records.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 25 August 2022. It sent him a copy of its surveyor’s report on 1 September 2022. This recommended works the landlord needed to take to remedy repair issues within his property and, sound insulation measures to the neighbour’s floor above his property. However, there is no record that it told the resident that its surveyor’s recommendations needed to be approved by management. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained its process for approving works. This would likely have caused the resident confusion. However, the landlord did acknowledge in its complaint responses that it should have clarified its position sooner and offered the resident £40 compensation as a result. This was reasonable and We consider it was proportionate in view of the impact this had on him.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 September 2022. It said there were times when it needed to carry out further investigations into such matters as noise transference. It was “surprised” that he did not mention his concerns about this issue when it visited his property on 8 September 2022, during a further repair inspection. It said that it would visit his property on 13 September 2022 to investigate the noise transference issue further and that management approval of its surveyor’s recommendation was needed. This was a reasonable response so it could investigate the issue further.
The landlord provided the resident with its action plan for repairs needed at his property on 16 September 2022. It said that it had “overridden” its first surveyors report and would not look to install soundproofing to the property above his until it had completed repair work within his property. It is unclear what the reason for this was and it would have been reasonable for it to have clearly explained the steps that it would be taking to deal with repairs to his home and address his concerns around noise. This may have avoided the resident feeling that he should take steps to refuse works.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it stopped all repairs to the resident’s property on 21 October 2022, as he was “refusing works until the noise issue was sorted.” The resident disputed this and told the landlord he had suggested “the works be put on hold until the go ahead was given for the sound insulation works.” As there is no evidence of this conversation, we are unable to determine this matter. However, the evidence does not show a link between the repairs in his flat and the sound proofing to the property above. It would have been reasonable for it to have determined independently to other works, if sound proofing was needed to the flat above. This caused the resident inconvenience as he had to pursue the landlord for answers on the issue.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it would not be installing sound insulation to his neighbour’s flooring. It told him it was unable to provide him with the specific reasons why his neighbour was unable to change the flooring. However, it would have been reasonable to have told him why it could not do this itself. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of a noise transference issue at his property:
1. it managed his expectations when it explained that the issue may not be classed as ASB.
2. it engaged with his neighbour to address the issue and provided him with a noise diary.
3. it explained that it first needed to investigate his concerns as a service request.
4. it acted quickly to address his vulnerabilities when it made a safeguarding referral.
The resident believed that the landlord was aware of noise transference issues at the property before his tenancy began. However, its evidence does not show that it was aware of any noise issues until he reported it to them. Its stage 2 response considered its records from 2009 at the property. In the absence of any previous noise complaints, it confirmed its position on this matter, which was reasonable.
The landlord took positive steps to address the resident’s concerns. However, it failed to:
1. provide a timescale for keeping him informed about the progress of his ASB case.
2. assess the level of risk involved in the case and clearly communicate this to him and offer him appropriate support following the outcome of this.
3. explain why his ASB case remained open after it had concluded the noise issue was not ASB.
4. explain why it could not begin noise insulation works, until it had completed repairs within his property.
The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise transference at his property and antisocial behaviour (ASB). In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a service request as a repair, provision of service or action, where the timeframe for delivering that repair or action has not yet passed. It will attempt to fix the issue, manage the case and give feedback if the target completion date has not yet passed.
The resident expressed noise transference concerns with the landlord in July 2022. On 1 August 2022 it contacted him and said these concerns did not “fall into the remit of its complaints procedure.” This is likely to have caused the resident confusion as the issue did fall within its complaint’s procedure, initially as a service request. The evidence does indicate it initially considered the issue as a service request. However, there is no record that it provided the resident with a target date to fix the issue. This disadvantaged him, as it delayed him accessing its complaints procedure. It would have been reasonable for it to have made it clear when he would be able to raise the issue as a formal complaint.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages within the timeframe set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was a positive that its stage 2 complaint was handled by someone with no involvement with the resident’s previous complaints.
The landlord’s complaint responses considered and addressed each point the resident had made. It provided a detailed response that set out its position on the substantive issue. It recognised that its communication with him could have been better. Although it delayed the resident accessing its complaints procedure, this was a minor failure, and it did continue to take steps to resolve the issue before it logged his complaint.
The Ombudsman finds the was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference at his property and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. pay £100 compensation directly to the resident for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s reports of noise transference at his property and antisocial behaviour (ASB).