From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Saxon Weald (202330835)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330835

Saxon Weald

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference from neighbouring properties.

Background

  1. The resident purchased a 2-bedroom flat in December 2020 under the shared ownership scheme. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 7 May 2021 the resident wrote to the housing developer to report noise coming through her son’s bedroom walls from neighbouring flats. She attached a sound recording and stated that she could also hear it in her bedroom and bathroom. She asked it to carry out a “full investigation”. The developer undertook a sound insulation survey of the property on 9 June 2021. It passed its findings onto the National House Building Council (NHBC) as part of the resident’s warranty claim.
  3. On 15June 2021, the landlord forwarded the resident an email it had received from the NHBC stating it would not progress her claim. This was because it deemed that the building met the required standards, and that the sound was within acceptable levels. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to say she was unhappy with the outcome of her claim and wanted to take the matter further.
  4. The landlord commissioned a specialist contractor to carry out a sound insulation test on 6 August 2021. This found that the sound insulation was “very good” overall and satisfied the government’s sound insulation requirements. However, it also noted that “the perimeter walls were clearly allowing sound transfer in the mid and high-mid frequencies”. It recommended works to improve the sound insulation, including installation of acoustic plasterboard over existing walls.
  5. On 23 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that:
    1. its senior managers had had the opportunity to discuss the sound insulation report. They were satisfied her property complied with building regulations and statutory guidance for soundproofing.
    2. it recognised the impact that the “high frequency noise transfer” was having on her household. It would therefore seek external advice on undertaking works, and would be in touch with her after it had made its enquiries.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 17 September 2021 with an offer to provide her with noise cancelling equipment to see if this would resolve the issue. She contacted it on 20 September 2021 to decline its offer as she felt it would not help. The landlord told her it would investigate whether it could source a specialist contractor to carry out the works recommended in the sound insulation report. It is unclear what actions the landlord took following this. However, the evidence shows the resident declined the landlord’s offer to install acoustic plasterboard as she was concerned about the amount of space she would lose.
  7. On 26 May 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint because:
    1. she had noticed the amount of sound she could hear from her property after all the flats became occupied.
    2. the sound travelled up through the walls and she was mentally “worn out” by it.
    3. she had “immediately” raised this with the landlord and developer.
    4. she felt there needed to be “checks done on the flat”.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 June 2023 in which it said:
    1. it was sorry the resident continued to be “troubled” by noise transference in her property.
    2. she was aware from its correspondence with her since July 2021 that her property had passed the sound tests and complied with building regulations.
    3. on 17 August 2021 the NHBC informed her it would not progress her insurance claim. This was because it found that the developer had not breached its “technical standards”.
    4. the developer had arranged a visit in November 2022 with an acoustic specialist. It confirmed that the property performed “to a good acoustic standard”.
    5. it was therefore unable to assist her further.
  9. The resident responded on the same day. She said:
    1. she would not accept there were no issues.
    2. her property needed “an invasive investigation”.
    3. although it had passed the sound test, the report “clearly” stated there was “a lot of sound transfer through the inner leaf of the external walls”.
  10. The landlord replied on 7 June 2023 to tell the resident it had escalated her complaint. It then spoke to her on 16 June 2023 to discuss her concerns and followed this up on the same day with a formal written acknowledgement. It also agreed with the resident to extend its response timescale to 14 July 2023 so it could assess the relevant reports and correspondence with external stakeholders. On 7 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response stating that:
    1. its surveyor and property investment manager had read the independent sound insulation report. They determined that the building had met building standards and could not find anything to indicate the property was not “noise compliant”.
    2. although the developer had not used a product specified in the plans, it had used an alternative, which complied with sound insulation requirements.
    3. it would not be able to install soundproofing in her property. This was because, as a shared owner, she was responsible for the maintenance within her home.
    4. the use of “absorptive materials” such as soft furnishings were helpful in controlling sound. Rug underlays, curtains, blinds and plants were also effective in reducing noise levels.
    5. it reiterated its offer of providing her with a “white noise machine”.
    6. she could contact Environment Health, who would be able to assess how the noise could be affecting her health and wellbeing. They could also recommend how to lessen or remove the impact of any noise disturbance.
    7. she could also explore the option of instructing her own structural inspection.
  11. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because:
    1. she had “severe sound issues” from the flat below, which came up “the inner leaf of all the external walls”.
    2. she could also hear “talking/walking/snoring” from the property 2 floors down.
    3. she had been “battling” with the landlord and developer most of the time she had lived there, and this was impacting both her and her son mentally.
  12. The resident told us on 3 July 2025 that the landlord had made enquiries about carrying out an “intrusive survey” of the property. However, the NHBC had informed it that this could invalidate the warranty for the whole building. It had therefore been unable to progress with the survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

  1. The resident has stated the noise transference has had a detrimental effect on her mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident told us that the landlord had agreed to carry out a survey of the soil stack to ensure it met fire safety regulations. She stated she was still waiting for this to be done. As this issue did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something we can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this concern. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Reports of noise transference from neighbouring properties

  1. The lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in “good and substantial repair”. The landlord must maintain and repair the external, structural and common parts of the building. It recovers the costs of any works or maintenance through the resident’s service charges.
  2. The landlord’s shared ownership guide states that resident should report noisy parties, and other repeated or constant noise problems to the council’s Environmental Health Department. It stated that they have access to noise monitoring equipment and the legal power to confiscate the equipment responsible for making the noise. If residents report a noise problem to the council, they should let the landlord know so it also has a record of the situation.
  3. The government issued statutory guidance called Approved Document E. This relates to the Building Regulations 2010 covering the resistance to the passage of sound, and sound insulation. It applies to new buildings, alterations and conversions to residential use, and specifies the soundproofing standards for different types of buildings and rooms.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord first became aware of the noise transference issues the resident was reporting to the housing developer. It is also unclear when the resident started her claim with the NHBC. The first record of any discussion between the resident and landlord about this matter is from 14 June 2021. The resident informed it that the developer had attended her property on 9 June 2021 to inspect the insulation with the use of thermal imaging equipment.
  5. The resident informed the landlord on 15 June 2021 that:
    1. she was unhappy with the outcome of her NHBC claim.
    2. the developer had told her it would carry out sound testing.
    3. the NHBC said it could not understand why the developer had used thermal imaging for noise.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by commissioning a specialist contractor to carry out a sound insulation test on the property. This took place 52 days after the resident had received the outcome of her NHBC claim. The reasons for the delay are unclear, although we acknowledge that the contractor’s availability and capacity at the time would have been contributing factors.
  7. However, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have carried out its own investigations in the meantime. It ought to have visited the resident’s and neighbouring properties to determine the extent of the noise issue, and whether other residents were similarly affected. It could also have asked the resident to send any recordings she had made so it could assess any and all evidence available to it. This would have helped reassure her it was taking prompt action to address her concerns. It could have also established at an early stage whether it was appropriate for the resident to contact Environmental Health. That it did not conduct its own initial investigations was a shortcoming.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord reviewed the sound insulation report as soon as it had received it. This was appropriate. Furthermore, it shared the outcome of its assessment with the resident 8 days later, on 23 August 2021. The report confirmed that the sound insulation complied with current building regulations. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome of inspections by appropriately qualified professionals.
  9. However, the test also found that the perimeter walls were allowing noise transference from other properties in the block. The contractor recommended works to install acoustic plasterboard over existing walls in order to improve the sound insulation.
  10. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is not obligated to carry out any improvement works to the inside of the resident’s property. It therefore went over and above what would normally be expected by offering to cover the costs of the recommended works. This also demonstrates it was being customer focused and sensitive to the impact the noise transference was having on the household.
  11. Furthermore, on 17 September 2021, the landlord also offered to purchase the resident a “white noise machine” to help reduce the noise coming from outside her property. While we acknowledge the resident’s reasons for declining both offers, we also recognise that the landlord had made reasonable efforts to support her in tackling the noise transference.
  12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord reiterated to the resident that the sound insulation in her property complied with building regulations. It also noted that the developer had visited her property with an acoustic specialist and found that it performed “to a good acoustic standard”. This is supported by records of correspondence we have seen between the resident and developer.
  13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord repeated its offer of providing the resident with a “white noise machine”, which was appropriate. It was also appropriate for it to give advice about ways in which the resident could reduce noise transference. Although it correctly signposted her to Environmental Health for further advice and support, it could have done this at an earlier stage.
  14. We note that during a discussion with the landlord on 16 June 2023 the resident asked it to install underfloor soundproofing in her property. We recognise that social housing providers have limited budgets and are responsible for ensuring sufficient funds to complete necessary works across all of their housing stock. Furthermore, there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out any improvement works to the inside of a leaseholder’s property unless the lease specifies otherwise. For this reason, the landlord’s decision not to agree to the resident’s request for it to install soundproofing was reasonable.

Conclusion

  1. The landlord could have carried out its own investigations into the noise transference while waiting for the independent sound insulation test. It could also have made visits to the site, and to neighbouring properties to ascertain the nature and level of the noise. This would have helped it to establish whether other leaseholders were also affected by noise transference. Furthermore, it ought to have referred the resident to Environmental Health at an earlier stage. However, we recognise that in terms of what the landlord was obligated to do in this case, it is unlikely that, had it performed this action, it would have significantly altered the resident’s situation.
  2. However, it commissioned a sound insulation specialist to inspect the property in a timely manner. It also supported the resident to make warranty claims to the NHBC, and initially offered to cover the cost of works inside the property to minimise the noise transference. Furthermore, it offered to provide the resident with equipment to reduce the impact of any outside noise. Overall, we found the landlord’s actions were customer centred and solution focused, which was positive to note. We therefore consider the landlord responded reasonably and have found no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference from neighbouring properties.