Delta Housing Limited — case 202426433

Decision Case ID 202426433 Decision type Investigation Landlord Delta Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 28 April 2026 Background The resident reported concerns about noise transfer in October 2023 and reported repairs to the boiler in April 2024. The resident complained about these matters in April 2024. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Concerns that the property lacked sufficient noise insulation.

Reports of boiler repairs. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the concerns that the property lacked sufficient noise insulation. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord took reasonable steps to check if there was sufficient noise insulation in the property.

The landlord followed its policy when confirming that the boiler did not require decommissioning, however, it did not repair the hole in the wall within a reasonable time. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It failed to provide a stage 2 response, referring to the stage 1 as its final response. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the 26 May 2026 set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 26 May 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in repairing the boiler. £100 the landlord’s handling of the complaint. No later than 26 May 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord make a referral to the warranty provider to carry out an acoustic test, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 15 May 2024 The resident complained about the walls not being insulated and said this had been ongoing since 2023. She also queried issues with the safety of the boiler and the hole in the wall. She asked for clarification on the concerns raised and for the works to be completed. 6 June 2024 The landlord wrote to the resident to request an extension to 20 June 2024 for providing its stage 1 response. 24 June 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 response.

It said, after investigation, that insulation was not required for sound and that a referral would be made for an acoustic test. It confirmed the boiler did not need decommissioning and the area surrounding the flue was finished to standard. It raised a repair for the hole in the wall to be completed. It apologised for the concerns the resident had to raise and for its communication. 25 June 2024 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said not all the points of her complaint were covered as per the email dated 25 April 2024 which lists the defects in her home.

The resident also said the stage 1 complaint was sent out of timescale. 3 September 2024 The landlord wrote to the resident to advise that, due to no response from the resident, it had closed the complaint. It confirmed the stage 1 was its final response. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had fixed the boiler, but she was still unhappy about noise from the neighbouring property. She said the acoustic testing had not been done.

She also found the complaints process confusing. She said she wanted the landlord to carry out the testing, pay compensation, and respond properly to future complaints. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint Concerns that the property lacks sufficient noise insulation Finding No maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says new homes may be covered by a defects liability period. During this time, repairs may follow different contract arrangements. The evidence suggests – by the involvement of a developer – that the property remained in the defect period at the time the resident raised these concerns. The resident has previously raised complaints with our service about noise and harassment from the neighbour.

These complaints relate to ASB and are not linked to the noise insulation concerns raised in this complaint. For this reason, we have not considered ASB matters in this report. The resident told the landlord on 11 July 2023 that she was experiencing noise from her neighbour. She said a building issue caused the noise, as the property had no soundproofing. In September 2023 the resident’s representative reported further concerns the property was not adequately soundproofed and needed further investigation due to the level of noise heard.

At this stage the landlord arranged an inspection, which was an appropriate step to investigate the issue. Following that inspection in October 2023, the landlord said it would arrange a repair to add insulation to the risers. The landlord also said it would return after it finished the work to check if the noise had reduced. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to try to resolve the matter. The landlord appropriately raised with the developer about the risers and the soil stack which it believed should be fully insulated.

The developer confirmed that it has insulated the soil stack and provided photos as evidence. The developer also confirmed the risers did not need insulation for sound. It added that, due to their position they should not cause unacceptable noise transfer. Based on their review, they said it would take no further action. It is reasonable for landlords to rely on those who are appropriately qualified when making decisions about repairs. Therefore the landlord’s decision not to pursue insulation of the soil stack or risers was reasonable.

The resident then raised the concerns further as part of her complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would raise the resident’s concerns about soundproofing with the warranty provider and ask them to carry out acoustic testing to confirm whether there was a defect. It added that such sound testing between two neighbour’s properties would require both parties’ consent. The landlord took reasonable steps to try and resolve the matter before it decided to refer the issue to the warranty provider.

In October 2024 the resident said the landlord had not done the acoustic testing. We have not seen any evidence the landlord raised the acoustic test with the warranty provider. We have therefore recommended that the landlord make this referral. We note the warranty provider is not within our jurisdiction. We note the resident later told us the issue related more to the noise made by the neighbours rather than to a lack of insulation in the riser. Overall, our finding of maladministration is based on the steps the landlord took to inspect and raise the resident’s concerns with the developer.

This matter arose alongside ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour from the resident. We recognise that the resident’s reports of ASB and acknowledge her concerns about the impact this has had on her, however this investigation did not consider those matters. Complaint Concerns the boiler requires decommissioning Finding Service failure The landlord’s gas and heating systems safety policy says it must maintain gas fittings and flues and service gas appliances yearly. It says if they find any parts to be non-compliant, they will try to put it right first time.

If they need to revisit, they will leave the home in a safe condition. It says it will clearly communicate with residents providing a timely and efficient service. The resident received a letter saying a gas safety check was booked for 2 April 2024. During a gas safety visit on 2 April 2024, the resident told the engineer there was a hole in the wall above the boiler. The evidence suggests this was not fully resolved until 2 July 2024. We would expect the landlord to have carried out such a repair within 28 days (the standard for many landlord’s routine repairs).

In this case there was a delay of approximately 2 months. We note part of the delay was due to the landlord’s failure to let the resident know about 2 appointments that it arranged for 18 and 26 June 2024. The gas safety certificated evidenced the boiler was safe to use. The landlord’s decision not to replace it was therefore reasonable. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the landlord’s delay in putting things right.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and send its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code. The landlord was slightly late in dealing with the complaint. At stage 1, it asked for more time, which is allowed under the Code, but it sent its response two days later than the agreed deadline.

At stage 2, it sent the acknowledgement letter eight days after the resident asked for the complaint to be reviewed. The landlord did not give this service a copy of the stage 1 acknowledgement letter. This letter should have confirmed how the complaint was defined. The landlord also could not provide a copy of the resident’s original complaint. The stage 1 response was dated 19 June 2024, but the resident received it on 24 June 2024. The landlord should ensure its records are full and accurate.

At stage 2, the landlord uses an appeal panel. Its policy says it will contact the resident to arrange a panel meeting. It aims to do this within three weeks of acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. The resident can attend in person, attend remotely, or choose not to attend at all. Between June and August 2024, the landlord tried to speak to the resident and sent several emails about the complaint escalation. On 22 July 2024 the landlord said it would put the complaint on hold until she replied.

The resident contacted the landlord on 10 August 2024 asking about the appeal panel. She explained that she had been waiting for a call for over a month. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 September 2024 to say the complaint was closed because there was no response. It said the complaint was put on hold after a phone call on 19 July 2024 so the resident could send a statement, but it did not receive anything. The landlord said the stage 1 response was its final response.

The landlord did not follow its own complaint policy. It failed to issue a stage 2 response. It also did not follow the Code because it did not provide a written response and kept asking the resident to explain why she was escalating the complaint. Residents do not have to give a reason for escalating a complaint. We based our finding of maladministration on the landlord not clearly defining the complaint, delaying the stage 1 outcome and the stage 2 acknowledgement, and keeping poor records.

It closed the complaint even though it had not resolved her concerns and did not issue a stage 2 response. In line with our compensation guidance, due to the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by landlord’s failures, we order it to pay her compensation of £100. Learning The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure the property was correctly insulated, which the developer confirmed it was. However the landlord decided to take further action to assist the resident, this is good practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) While the landlord’s records were overall good it is unclear what the resident complained about and there were missing records of calls. It should ensure it keeps clear and full complaint records detailing contents of its calls with residents. This meant the landlord has not shown satisfactory record keeping in places. Communication The landlord failed to have regular and effective communication with the resident in its handling of the repairs.

The landlord should reflect on the shortcomings identified in this case and implement improvements.