Uttlesford District Council (202431683)

Decision
Case ID	202431683
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Uttlesford District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since August 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat and the resident has vulnerabilities due to her health conditions. Since around November 2021 the resident has been reporting severe noise transference from the flat above to the landlord. She believed the issue is caused by the building’s insulation as she can hear normal, everyday noise from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord carried out surveys in response to the resident’s reports but she continued to report experiencing noise transference. As such the resident raised a complaint about the ongoing issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference.
3. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of noise transference.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show it proactively responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference. The landlord did not chase the surveyors for their inspection report from June 2022, which caused a delay in its ability to carry out any recommended works. It has also not provided evidence to show what, if any, steps it took to minimise the reported noise throughout the period considered in this report.
7. The landlord failed to log the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity. The landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show it adhered to the extension date agreed for its stage 1 response. However, it followed its complaints policy timescales when issuing its stage 2 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.

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 provided by a member of the landlord’s management team. 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 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise transference.   The landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the impact of its complaint handling failures.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 October 2023	The resident raised her complaint. She said it was about excessive noise transference from her neighbours property due to a lack of effective insulation between the properties. She said she had been experiencing the noise transference for years and it had impacted her health. She said a sound insulation assessment was carried out in June 2022 and recommended several actions to improve sound insulation. She said the landlord had failed to take any action to fix the defects she had reported or those found during the sound insulation assessment.
15 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it would be difficult to improve the sound insulation of the property due to the age of the building. It also said that even after introducing these measures her neighbours’ daily movements would still be heard. It said it had requested quotes for sound insulating floorboards in the neighbour’s property and sound insulating plaster board in the resident’s ceilings. It said the resident would need to agree to the works and contribute towards the total cost. It said it would then update her once it received the quotes.
30 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord was yet to provide her with the quotes for the insulation works mentioned in its stage 1 response. She said she continued to experience noise transference from the flat above but the landlord had not taken her reports seriously. She also said the landlord had not visited the property to experience the noise transference she was living with. She said the flat above had recently been vacated and she felt it was the best time for the landlord to carry out the works to improve the sound insulation.
12 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said there was no guarantee that sound insulation alone would reduce noise being transmitted from the flat above to an acceptable level. It said the only viable option was to lift the neighbour’s floors to install sound insulation in the floor cavity and install acoustic matting or extra thick underlay. It said the cost of the works would be at least £6,000 and, as a leaseholder, the resident would need to pay a percentage of the total cost. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she accepted this option.
11 February 2025	The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she had suffered intrusive noise from the flat above due to a lack of insulation. She said this had been going on for 3 years and she can constantly hear all daily noise from the flat above. She said at that time the flat above was empty but the landlord had not carried out any works to reduce the noise in future.

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	Noise transference
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy explains there are instances where the reported behaviour will not be classed as ASB. It says this includes where the behaviour is not unreasonable, for example noise generated by everyday living. It says the examples given are not an exhaustive list and it will assess each complaint as to whether it is reasonable or not.
9. Typically, our investigations consider events from around a year before the resident complained up to the date the landlord issued its stage 2 response. Although, where there is evidence that a complaint should have been logged earlier, we may consider events going back further.
10. In this case, the resident raised a complaint on 4 October 2023. However evidence has been seen which shows she tried to raise a formal complaint on 17 February 2022. In that complaint the resident said it was about the ongoing noise transference from the flat above her and asked the landlord to investigate. She also confirmed the complaint was not about ASB. The landlord declined to log this complaint because it said it could not ‘investigate normal daily living noise as an ASB complaint or a breach of tenancy’. We would not expect a landlord to investigate reports of daily living noise as ASB, and in fact the resident was not asking it to. However, she had expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not resolved the noise transference issues. Therefore it should have logged a formal complaint at that time and investigated her concerns. It is for this reason that this report will consider events from November 2021, when the resident first reported the noise transference.
11. In the resident’s correspondence she has said the landlord’s failure to resolve the noise transference has had a significant effect on her mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
12. The resident has been making reports about noise transference from the flat above since November 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence of when it inspected the property following the resident’s initial reports. However, on 27 January 2022 it updated her with the results of an inspection. It said there was no requirement to install acoustic insulation as there had been no changes to the building which allowed the sound to travel. Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on these survey results at that time.
13. In June 2022 the landlord carried out an acoustic survey of the building. In an email dated 5 December 2025 the landlord confirmed that it did not receive the survey report until 26 October 2022. It has also not provided any evidence to show that it chased the surveyors for the report during this period. This indicates poor monitoring on the part of the landlord. It was also unreasonable as it caused a delay in the landlord carrying out any remedial actions that might have resulted from the survey findings. It also caused the resident time and trouble as she had to chase the landlord for updates during this period.
14. The survey report said the building dated back to the 1960/70s. The survey found that the existing levels of airborne and impact sound insulation on hard floors fell significantly short of modern minimum standards. That said, it also confirmed that modern building regulations for sound proofing do not apply to buildings of that age and there was no requirement for such buildings to meet modern standards. It said the biggest improvements would require the landlord to carry out works such as installing independent ceilings, platform floors and independent wall linings. However, the report acknowledged these works would have a knock-on effect on current floor levels and ceiling heights. As such, it recommended the landlord focus on improving sound insulation with as little impact as possible on ceiling and floor heights.
15. We acknowledge that landlords are not legally responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, our Spotlight Report on noise complaints recommends that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate the typical sources of noise nuisance will be the most cost-efficient. By being proactive and working towards minimising noise transference landlords can also minimise the impact on residents as well as prevent noise complaints.
16. The evidence seen shows that between June 2022 and 12 September 2024 the resident continued to report noise transference from the flat above. She also provided multiple phone recordings to evidence the noise she was experiencing and explained the impact this was having on her. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of what steps, if any, it took to investigate and/or try to resolve the reported issues. For example, providing the resident with recording equipment or diary sheets, talking to the neighbours, asking the neighbour to put rugs over the laminate flooring, etc. This was unreasonable and indicates the landlord was not proactive in taking steps to minimise noise transference. As a result, it left the resident in a property with noise transference issues for over 2 years without attempting to resolve it. This was a significant amount of time. The landlord’s failure to try to minimise the impact of the noise during this period caused the resident distress, inconvenience and impacted her full enjoyment of the property.
17. During a call with this Service on 9 December 2025 the resident said she was also unhappy with the landlord’s actions after the stage 2 response. She said it had promised to carry out insulation works but then failed to complete these until over a year later. We acknowledge the resident continued to experience noise transference until the landlord completed the insulation works in November 2025. However, typically we are unable to consider events which took place after the stage 2 response because these have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. Although, there may be cases where we could extend this scope if the landlord promised something in its stage 2 response but failed to act on this.
18. In this instance, the landlord’s stage 2 response said it would install sound insulation under the flooring of the flat. However, this was on the condition that the resident accept this proposal and that she would need to pay a percentage of the total costs. As such, the landlord can not be said to have promised to carry out the works but rather had agreed to do so under certain conditions. Additionally, the landlord’s ability to act on what it had agreed to was dependant on what happened after the stage 2 response. Therefore, we are unable to consider the delays after the stage 2 response as part of this complaint. The resident would need to raise a separate complaint about these before we would be able to consider them.
19. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, amount to maladministration and can be summarised as failing to:
    1. Take steps to minimise the reported noise transference.
    2. Adequately investigate the reported noise transference.
    3. Chase the surveyors to avoid delays.
20. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the resident £600 compensation. This sum is in–line with our published remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge them. We are aware the sound insulation works were completed in November 2025. As such, we have not made an order relating to the insulation works themselves.
     

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

21. The landlord’s complaints policy in operation in October 2023 said it would issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The policy said that should more time be needed, the landlord will explain this to the resident and provide a new deadline for its response. The version of the policy in operation in August 2024 said the landlord would acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It said the landlord would issue its stage 2 response within 10 working days of the request being logged.
22. Both versions of the policy defined a complaint as:
    1. An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
23. As mentioned earlier in this report, evidence has been seen which shows the resident tried to raise a formal complaint in February 2022. The landlord declined to log this complaint because it could not investigate everyday noise as ASB. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s complaint policy in operation in February 2022. However, it is our understanding that the definition of a complaint would not have been much different to that used in the 2023 policy.
24. We acknowledge the landlord should not have investigated reports of everyday noise as ASB. However, the resident had made a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the landlords failure to resolve the reported noise transference. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to log the resident’s complaint in February 2022. This caused a delay in it addressing her concerns but also caused her time and trouble as she had to raise the complaint again later.
25. The resident raised another complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of an acknowledgment email. The resident’s escalation request referred to an email from the landlord, dated 26 October 2023, requesting an extension. The landlord has also not provided a copy of this email. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident about needing more time. However, the landlord should have requested an extension within the initial deadline. In this case, the landlord requested the extension 12 working days after the complaint was raised. That said, this was a short delay and we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
26. At the time, we recommended that any deadline extensions for complaint responses should not exceed 10 working days without good reason. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2023, 14 working days later. Without a copy of the email from 26 October 2023, we are unable to conclude the landlord had good reason to issue its response more than 10 working days later.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 August 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 6 September 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 12 September 2024. This was in-line with the landlord’s complaint’s policy timescales.
28. Overall, as set out above, the landlord’s failures amount to service failure and can be summarised as failing to:
    1. Log a complaint in February 2022.
    2. Keep adequate records.
29. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident and the landlord did not acknowledge them.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Clear record keeping is an essential part of responding to reports of noise transference and to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor the reported issues and take appropriate steps to minimise the impact on residents.