Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202315785)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315785

Southern Housing

07 October 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor. The lease commenced on 2 December 2022. The upstairs neighbour is also a leaseholder.
  2. The resident first reported noise from the flat above on 15 December 2022. The landlord responded on 19 December 2022 and requested that the resident completed diary sheets or uploaded recordings on the Noise App.
  3. The resident reported further noise disturbances in December 2022 and throughout 2023.
  4. As the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to her reports, she made a formal complaint on 31 July 2023. She said the situation had been affecting her for the last 7 months and no action had been taken against the upstairs neighbour. She had sent several recordings from January 2023, to show the upstairs neighbour was breaching the lease. They were making excessive noise beyond the appropriate hours set out in the lease. This includes the neighbour stamping their feet and dragging furniture, which created intense noise and physically shook the resident’s property. The resident requested that the landlord take action to get the noise to stop, for example, by issuing a fine to the neighbour.
  5. As she had not received any response to the complaint from the landlord, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman for assistance. The Ombudsman sent a letter to the landlord on 27 September 2023, requesting that it provide a written response to the complaint by 18 October 2023. It did not do this, so the Ombudsman sent a chaser to the landlord on 8 April 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 April 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 April 2024, it said from the evidence it had received, it was unable to confirm that there had been noise nuisance. Its legal team had determined that the situation was due to differing lifestyles. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it took action following the noise reports and advised her of the outcome of the investigation. It recognised that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint when she raised it in July 2023. It offered £225 compensation for this, which included £150 for the complaint handling failures and £75 for the inconvenience caused by the delayed contact.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 April 2024, she said she had no issue with her neighbour having a different lifestyle, but with the excessive noise. She complained that the landlord’s poor communication had made the situation worse, which had caused sleepless nights and emotional breakdowns.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 May 2024. It apologised about the situation and listened to the recordings. It did not consider the noise to be deliberate; however, it contacted the neighbour in September 2023 to advise of the complaints received. They denied being deliberately noisy but installed some carpeting to try and minimise the noise transference. Following its visit to the property in April 2024, it had concerns about the soundproofing, as it found the noise transference to be unusually loud from just walking in the upstairs property. It planned to instruct contractors to carry out a sound proofing check and to discuss the necessary actions with the resident on 4 June 2024. It did not uphold the complaint, as it said it had followed its process correctly.
  9. Following the stage 2 response, the resident continued to send correspondence to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy. She said the landlord had not addressed that the recorded noise disturbances were made after the sociable hours cut off point. She said she is happy to work with the neighbour to have the entire apartment carpeted and confirmed the issue is both noise and impact transference. She complained that the neighbour was getting away with deliberate ASB to harass her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise

  1. The tenant user regulations state that leaseholders should not make any unreasonable noise between 10:00pm and 8:00am on weekdays and between 12pm on Saturday, until 8:00am on the following Monday. Unreasonable noise means anything that causes nuisance to other owners or occupiers, including playing music, noisy building work or any other noise that would be audible outside of the property.
  2. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, it considers excessive noise to be ASB, but this does not include everyday living noise and lifestyle clashes (including cultural differences or different working patterns). Where it does not consider noise reports to be ASB, the policy says it will follow its good neighbourhood management procedure. It may also use this if it decides this would be the most effective way of resolving the issue. The good neighbourhood management procedure can include asking the resident and neighbour to sign a good neighbour agreement, undertaking home visits and exploring practical measures to reduce the impact of noise.
  3. When the resident first reported the noise disturbance on 15 December 2022, the landlord was proactive in sending out diary sheets and giving the resident access to the Noise App. We recognise that there was a delay in the resident receiving the diary sheets, but this was due to the postal service and not caused by the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly and provided guidance on recording the ASB, for its investigation. It sent a letter to the resident on 22 December 2022, which clearly set out its process for dealing with noise reports, including an initial 2-week period to obtain evidence. The Service would therefore consider the landlord to have acted reasonably and promptly when it received the initial noise reports.
  4. The resident made several noise disturbance reports in December 2022 and early January 2023. She said there had been loud noise every evening since she moved into the property on 3 December 2022. There was loud banging, heavy footsteps, slamming doors and loud television noise from 11:00pm, through to 3:00am on 24 December 2022 and 4 January 2023. She had tried to resolve the situation politely via text and meetings, but this had not helped.
  5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 5 January 2023; it acknowledged that there had been police involvement due to the constant noise and the impact of the situation on her mental health. It apologised and explained that after the 2-week monitoring period, it would review the evidence within 5 weeks to decide whether the residents’ reports would be classed as ASB. It was reasonable that the landlord clearly set out its initial process to the resident and communicated with her by letter, email and on the phone. Nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the issue with greater urgency due to the impact it was having, which could have included sending a warning to the neighbour.
  6. When reporting further noise throughout January 2023, she experienced issues with the Noise App from 17 January to 24 January 2023. The landlord was pro-active in sorting out the issue, which was reasonable, given the importance of the landlord needing evidence of the noise nuisance. The resident raised a further incident on 24 January 2023 and following this, the landlord attempted to call her back 4 times and then 3 times the following day. It was reasonable that the landlord made several attempts to speak to the resident about the situation, as this shows it was taking the situation seriously.
  7. As the noise reports continued, the landlord sent the neighbour a warning letter on 28 February 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a warning. The landlord also called the neighbour on 10 March 2023 and referred them to the warning letter, including that their conduct should be neighbourly. This was reasonable, so that it could reiterate what it had said in the letter and discuss the issue directly.
  8. Despite the warning, the resident made further noise reports in February 2023, and the landlord recorded that the neighbour may need support, however, we have not seen any evidence to show it followed up on this. As the landlord was aware of a possible support need, it would have been reasonable for it to have prioritised the situation, taken steps so it did not escalate and offered support to both the resident and the neighbour.
  9. The noise was continuing in March 2023, despite the landlord issuing its 3rd and final warning to the neighbour. The Ombudsman has requested details of all the warnings sent by the landlord, but this information has not been forthcoming, and we have only received details of the warning made on 28 February 2023. While it was reasonable for the landlord to have provided warnings to the neighbour, it should have informed the resident on what it could do if the noise disturbance continued. This would have reduced frustration and inconvenience for the resident, as she had to regularly chase for updates.
  10. We have also seen that in May and June 2023, the landlord failed to contact the resident when it had previously arranged to do so. Where a landlord says it will contact a resident on a particular day, it is important that it does this, as this can help to build trust and confidence in the landlord and tenant relationship.
  11. In June 2023, the legal team concluded that the noise was ultimately a clash of lifestyles and not ASB. It originally said that it would decide within 5 weeks whether the case would be treated as ASB and inform the resident of the process it would be following. It was unreasonable that it did not adhere to this timeframe. The landlord’s ASB policy states that where it does not consider noise nuisance reports to be ASB, it will follow its good neighbourhood management procedure, which includes having the resident and the neighbour sign a good neighbour agreement. However, the Ombudsman has not received any evidence to show this was done, or that the resident was told how the situation would be dealt with.
  12. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise (published in October 2022) recommends that residents are told if their noise reports are being handled within the good neighbourhood management policy or as ASB. This helps to provide clarity to the resident early in the process about the possible outcomes of their reports. The landlord did not manage this well and we recognise this would cause distress and inconvenience.
  13. On 22 June 2023, the landlord noted that a noise recorder was urgently needed at the property, as the resident had reported deliberate harassment by her neighbour. It had advised the neighbour by email, letter and phone to stop causing the resident discomfort, but this had not worked. It recognised that it needed the noise recorder to capture reliable evidence for its legal team to consider action, which was reasonable given the resident’s regular reporting. The Ombudsman recognises that it was taking the situation seriously, however, this was several months after the first incident was reported, and so this should have been an earlier consideration.
  14. Following this, the landlord did not record any more information about the noise recorder, despite it previously recognising the need for tangible evidence. If it deemed the noise recorder was impractical, too expensive or no longer needed, it should have noted this decision. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Nevertheless, as it had recognised the need for evidence of the noise transference, it would have been reasonable for it to have arranged a visit to the properties, or an investigation by another contractor. This would have been appropriate, as the reporting had been going on for several months and may have helped the resident feel listened to.
  15. In July 2023, the landlord listened to recordings sent by the resident on 19 June 2023. It noted continuous and consistent noise, like someone exercising or running on the spot. Its notes concluded that this would not be enough to be considered ASB and that it would need similar recordings to prove that the noise was deliberate. It stated that it may need to speak to the neighbour, to explain the noise it had heard in the recordings, which was a reasonable conclusion. However, the Ombudsman notes several recordings were sent to the landlord since January 2023 and there are no notes regarding its conclusions about these recordings. It is important that landlords keep accurate and clear records of the steps taken when dealing with ASB cases. Landlords should also ensure that their approaches to retaining evidence of noise are sufficiently accurate and robust to ensure they cannot lose the evidence they receive.
  16. The resident reported in July 2023 that she had been physically harassed in the building’s foyer in January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that this was raised at the time, or whether the landlord addressed this with the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB includes conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. As such, it is likely that this situation would be classed as ASB under the policy. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to have noted this incident and advised the resident on what to do if this happened again.
  17. On 18 July 2023, the landlord spoke with the neighbour about installing carpets in their property, it advised them to contact the developers for help, as the situation could have been caused by a structural defect in the building. It had also noted previously that the property was in its defects period. While we recognise that the neighbour and the resident are leaseholders, it may have also been appropriate for the landlord to have considered any options it had to support the neighbour with having the carpets installed. Nevertheless, it acted reasonably in speaking to the neighbour about installing carpets, as it was trying to find practical solutions to deal with the noise transference.
  18. The landlord further advised the resident that as the situation did not meet the threshold for ASB, she should approach the local authority for further assistance and report any harassment to the police. This was reasonable as the local authority’s environmental health team would be responsible for establishing whether there is a statutory nuisance and they may be able to help with excessive everyday living noise. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the resident speaks to the police, as she had reported physical harassment, which would be a criminal matter.
  19. For an issue to be considered a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it must either unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or injure health. From December 2022, the resident made regular reports of noise disturbances, and it is clear this was impacting her ability to enjoy her home. The resident also disclosed to the landlord that she had an emotional breakdown in February 2024 and was taking medication due to sleep deprivation, anxiety and depression. This shows the impact the situation was having on her health. Therefore, regardless of whether the landlord considered the noise reports to be ASB, it should have been seeking avenues to support the resident. This could have included installing the noise recorder that it mentioned in June 2023, or having the neighbour sign a good neighbour agreement, as stated in its ASB policy.
  20. The landlord arranged a joint visit to carry out noise transference tests on 15 April 2024, as the recordings had not been conclusive to establish noise nuisance. It found that even faint walking could be heard from the upstairs property and concluded that the floors required reinforcement, particularly in the hallway. After the visit, it asked the developer to attend and carry out further tests, however, they refused.
  21. The landlord subsequently arranged a sound insulation investigation between both flats on 21 May 2024. The report largely stated that the impact sound tests were shown to comfortably achieve the minimum performance standards. However, when tests were done on hard flooring, this created a ‘thud’ noise. The report found that footfall and impacts could be heard from the upstairs property to the resident’s property. It said there would need to be social consideration and that carpet with good quality underlay would need to be laid, to significantly improve the noise. It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a joint visit and sound investigation by a contractor; however, this was several months after the initial noise reports.
  22. Given the advice from the sound investigation to install carpets in the above flat, it would have been helpful if the landlord could take this forward. We recognise, however, that as the neighbour is a leaseholder, it would not have been the landlord’s responsibility to provide this. The landlord subsequently told the resident on 23 October 2024 that it felt it had taken steps to address the situation. It apologised that the matter remained unresolved, however, concluded that it had taken all available measures to resolve the noise nuisance complaint, and the building had been assessed as compliant. While the Service recognises that the landlord felt it had taken every step it could, in the Ombudsman’s view, it did not completely follow its usual procedure.
  23. It took the landlord approximately 5 months to decide if the noise reports could be classed as ASB. While the Ombudsman recognises that this may not have been clear, the landlord should have investigated further, to assist with the decision. It is also unclear if it followed its good neighbourhood management procedure, which is what it says it will follow, if it does not consider the noise to be ASB. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its own policy, it did not provide clear information, and this meant the resident had to spend time and effort regularly chasing for updates.
  24. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord took some reasonable actions, including sending warning letters to the upstairs neighbour and suggesting that a noise recorder is installed. However, the evidence we have received shows the warning letter was sent 3 months after the noise was first reported, and after the situation had already caused significant distress to the resident.
  25. The landlord recognised that it needed the noise recorder to capture reliable evidence, however, the Ombudsman has not received any evidence to show this was done or mentioned again. It took several months to visit the properties and instruct a sound investigation, which should have been prioritised sooner. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord did not consider that the noise from the neighbour was outside of sociable hours. The Ombudsman deems this to be unreasonable, as this was why the resident was frustrated with the noise, as it was impacting her ability to sleep. Ultimately, we think that the resident’s concerns and experience could have been better managed.
  26. We have therefore determined that there was maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance where the landlord’s failure has caused a significant impact, we have ordered it to pay £400 compensation directly to the resident. The landlord should also arrange a meeting with the resident to continue to explore how the noise transference can be resolved if she is still experiencing it.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident made her formal complaint on 31 July 2023. It should be noted, however, that the landlord made reference to noise complaints on various occasions and used this term interchangeably with ‘noise reports’. It also recognised the resident was unhappy at various stages. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform her about her right to complain, if she was dissatisfied with the way it was handling the situation or the actions it had taken. The Service has not seen any evidence to show that this was done, which is unreasonable.
  2. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The resident raised her formal complaint on 31 July 2023, and the Code says that landlords must issue a full stage 1 response within 10 working days of its complaint acknowledgement. However, it failed to adhere to this time frame, and it did not provide a written acknowledgement of the complaint, despite it recording on 9 August 2023 that the resident was awaiting a response to her complaint. This should have prompted the landlord to provide an acknowledgement.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had to contact our Service for assistance as she had not received any response to her formal complaint. We subsequently sent our first request for action to the landlord on 27 September 2023, and we asked it to provide the resident with a response to her complaint by 18 October 2023. This was not done, and the Ombudsman had to chase the landlord on 8 April 2024. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 April 2024, and it provided the stage 1 response on 15 April 2024, which was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
  4. On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, and the landlord acknowledged this request on 22 April 2024, which we are pleased to see was in line with the 5 working day timeframe set out in the Code. It provided its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024, within the timeframe of 20 working days set out in the Code.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord acted in line with the timescales set out in the Code from when it acknowledged the complaint on 11 April 2024. However, this was over 8 months after the resident made her formal complaint, which is unreasonable, as residents should feel listened to and that their complaint will be taken seriously by the landlord. The resident had repeatedly told the landlord that the situation was causing significant distress and inconvenience to her and failing to acknowledge or take on her complaint would have added to this.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord offered £225 in its stage 1 complaint response for its complaint handling failures and its delayed contact. However, as it took over 8 months to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and provide its complaint response, this does not go far enough to put things right. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with our remedies guidance for service failure which has caused distress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to demonstrate that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay £450 compensation to the resident. This includes £400 for its handling of the noise reports and £50 for its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £225 previously offered to the resident.
  2. The landlord must meet the resident to discuss the current situation and any further solutions available to it, if the noise is continuing. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this via a follow-up letter to the resident, setting out what was discussed and any next steps.