Soha Housing Limited (202334096)

Background

1. The resident was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat at the time of the complaint. She lived with her son. She does not have any vulnerabilities, however she has stated that the circumstances of the complaint affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of noise transference from the flat above.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure with the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference.
4. There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not offer compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its delay in implementing a possible solution.
6. The landlord did not address the resident’s mental health at the earliest opportunity.
7. The landlord did not address or offer compensation for a delay with the stage 1 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 due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The landlord does not have a specific procedure for investigating noise complaints. However, its anti-social behaviour policy classifies ‘general household noise’ as ‘unwelcome behaviour’. This means activities that may upset people but are not a tenancy breach or crime. The landlord does not investigate unwelcome behaviour. Instead, residents are encouraged to speak directly to the person involved, explain their concerns and suggest compromises.
9. The landlord must decide if reported noise is normal household noise or anti-social behaviour. The anti-social behaviour policy does not give specific timescales but says responses will be quick and sensitive.
10. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It lists noise as one of the 29 hazards identified. Landlords have an obligation to reduce or remove these hazards. The HHSRS highlights mental health risks from exposure to noise caused by poor sound insulation. It recommends better partition construction in flats. It also advises using noise meters to measure noise transfer between homes.
11. The resident first reported noise from the flat above to the landlord on 22 May 2023. She said it was preventing the peaceful enjoyment of her own home and impacting her mental health. She mentioned moving as a possible resolution. The landlord replied on the same day requesting further information. The resident described children playing on a laminated floor daily from 6am to 8pm.
12. The Ombudsman published its Spotlight report on noise complaints in October 2022. It highlighted issues with laminate flooring in upper flats. Since 2019, the landlord’s policy has been to carpet vacant properties before letting them. This is a positive step to lessen the issues with hard flooring. However, before this, the practice was to leave good condition flooring in vacant properties. In this case, the neighbour moved in before 2019 and the laminate flooring had been left in by the landlord.
13. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 7 June 2023. It fed back to the resident that the noise is ‘normal living noise’. However, the neighbours do have the laminate flooring that was left in by the landlord when the property was vacant prior to 2019. There is underlay to minimise sound. The landlord said little could be done as there was no breach of tenancy. It admitted the insulation was poor. The flats are purpose built and met the building regulations at the time. It asked the resident to use a noise app to record sounds for further monitoring.
14. Over the next few months, the resident asked the landlord about a rent discount to cover unreasonable living conditions and a possible move to a nearby vacant property. Each time the landlord responded promptly. It again advised use of the noise app to assist monitoring of the issue. It provided information on moving home as per its lettings policy.
15. On 27 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again, saying the laminate flooring made normal living noise worse. She noted it is now a breach of tenancy to install laminate in upper flats. She explained the impact the noise was having on her daily life and mental health. She asked the landlord to investigate and install ceiling insulation. The landlord responded the same day. It could see that the resident had not used the noise app. It urged her to use the app to record evidence of excessive noise. Although the response was supportive and informative, it did not address her mental health at this point.
16. The resident started using the noise app on 26 December 2023. The landlord reviewed recordings for 4 weeks. It visited the resident to discuss them on 24 January 2024. The resident and landlord agreed the noise was not malicious and was normal living noise. The landlord visited the neighbour to see if there was anything it could do to resolve the problem. It agreed to buy a rug to cover the laminate flooring. Around this time the resident and her sister contacted the landlord with concerns about her mental health. The landlord addressed this and recommended she contact her GP for support.
17. The landlord closed its investigation into the noise. It was not a tenancy breach, so it would not progress the complaint further. It had bought a large rug for the living room to reduce noise transfer. It also advised that the neighbour welcomes the resident to speak to them directly about any further issues. This is in line with its policy on unwelcome behaviour.
18. After the stage 1 complaint, the landlord took the additional step of carpeting the hall, the stairs and the neighbour’s landing to further limit noise transference. Two days after this the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The rug and carpeting had not helped. The resident again asked to be rehoused as a solution. The landlord responded promptly to this and gave advice on how to move within social housing. It also advised her to contact the environmental health department of the local authority.
19. The evidence shows the noise transfer negatively affected the resident and her son. Although she agreed it was normal living noise, it disrupted the peaceful enjoyment of her home. However, the landlord did investigate her concerns and came up with a suitable solution. The evidence shows that there was a delay while the landlord waited for noise app evidence. However, it should have considered carpeting in June 2023 when it first identified the flooring as a factor. Positively, the landlord noted this as a learning point in its stage 2 response. However, it did not offer any compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble with this 8-month delay. This was a service failure.

Post internal complaint procedure

20. In September 2024, environmental health installed noise recording equipment for 2 weeks to check if sound insulation was adequate and if the noise was normal household noise. In October 2024, they reported to the landlord that the equipment did not detect anything they could act on. They could not identify poor insulation and closed the complaint.
21. In March 2025 the resident did a mutual exchange to another property with a different landlord. Although she reported feeling forced to take this route and her previous property had the convenience of being ground floor and closer to work and family, she is no longer affected by noise.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, which can be extended by 10 days for complex cases. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, which can be extended by 20 working days for complex cases.
23. The landlord took 13 days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint. It did not address this delay in its response or offer redress. This is a service failure.
24. The complaint responses were comprehensive and covered all the points raised. The landlord offered advice and assistance and followed through with its assurances. The landlord also reflected on where it could have improved its response.

Learning

Communication

25. The landlord generally communicated well with the resident and internally. However, it should have acted sooner on her mental health concerns by offering support or signposting to other services. It should review available support services and inform residents about them as early as possible.

Handling noise reports

26. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints recommends landlords have a separate noise policy instead of including it under anti-social behaviour. This could form part of a good neighbourhood management policy and avoid confusion. Currently, the landlord lists issues it will not handle under the anti-social behaviour policy. It does not say which policy covers them.
27. The landlord requested that the resident use a noise app to assist investigation. Its policy states it does not investigate normal living noise so this was not necessary. The landlord should have referred to its policy from the start. 
28. At several points in the complaint process, the landlord signposted the resident to the local council’s environmental health department. As this was normal living noise and not anti-social behaviour, the environmental health team would not be able to take any action. The landlord should not make such signposting and should manage the resident’s expectations.