London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202440022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440022

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 September 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 the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her concerns about the information provided about the noise level before purchasing the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

3. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. She purchased the property in January 2023.
4. On 22 April 2024 the resident reported noise disturbance from the flat above, including hammering, banging, and moving furniture. She said the issue had been ongoing for 8 months. The landlord asked the resident to use a noise app to document the noise and later advised it considered the reports to be general living noise, rather than antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. The resident raised a complaint on 31 August 2024 due to the level of noise transference from the flat above. She said when she purchased the property the landlord told her that it completed noise testing. She wanted to move out and the landlord to pay compensation as she was likely to incur considerable moving costs.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2024. It said it would speak to the builders and project management team to see whether it could take any steps to reduce the noise. It then sent a second stage 1 response on 15 October 2024. It said the noise test levels met the appropriate building standards. It was unable to guarantee that the building would be quiet. It empathised with the resident’s situation but said it had not mis-sold the property. It signposted the resident to information about reselling the property and advised her to talk to a lender.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 December 2024. She said the warranty provider said they were not responsible for the noise issues. The landlord said it could not take any further action due to the type of noise, but it had not considered the level of noise. She thought the landlord should have offered support as she struggled to work or sleep in the property. She purchased the flat due to the sales team advising it would likely be quiet, which she thought was an incorrect approach. She was unable to sell the property as the valuation had reduced.
8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 7 January 2025, the landlord said it could not guarantee that the property would be quiet. It recognised that the resident did not feel adequately informed of the level of noise, but it had not made any mistakes in the sales process. It completed noise testing which showed the property was up to standard. It signposted the resident to relevant information if she wanted to make any improvements to reduce the noise levels.
9. The resident raised a further complaint on 21 February 2025 in which she reiterated her noise concerns. She said the sale representative said she would not be able to hear construction noise if she closed the window, which she disputed. She said the landlord’s misinformation prevented her from completing her own research into the noise level. She also thought if the landlord had talked to the neighbour, it could have minimised the noise. The landlord said it had already responded to the complaint and referred the resident to the Ombudsman.
10. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as the issues were unresolved. She said she can hear noise from the flat above including walking, moving furniture, and using the bathroom. She felt the landlord had lied about the level of noise and did not care about how it impacted her. She said the noise had a negative impact on her mental health and sleep. To resolve the complaint, she wanted £20,000 compensation to cover the costs she would incur by selling the property at a lower market rate with current low demand.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her concerns about the information provided about the noise level before purchasing the property

11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that persistent, deliberate, or targeted noise is considered ASB, but day to day activities such as noise cannot be avoided, and although it may be frustrating it is unreasonable for it to place restrictions on a tenant’s enjoyment of their home. The policy states it will assess standard cases within 3 working days.
12. The resident initially reported noise from the flat above on 22 April 2024, including hammering, banging, and moving furniture. She said she had contacted the neighbour, but this had not resolved the issue. She requested the landlord to ask the neighbour to reduce the noise. The landlord told the resident on 1 May 2024 to use the noise app for 10 consecutive days. It is reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported noise to assess whether it would be considered ASB or general living noise. There was a short delay in the landlord’s action, but it was reasonable that it apologised for this.
13. The resident chased the outcome of the recordings on 13 June 2024. The landlord should have set out an action plan with timeframes to manage the resident’s expectations about the actions it would take, to prevent her from chasing a response. The landlord then confirmed on 21 June 2024 that the recording amounted to general living noise, which includes activities such as DIY, opening and closing doors, walking around, and hoovering. The landlord told the resident it was unable to act further and signposted her to the council’s noise team. It was reasonable that the landlord investigated the noise and confirmed its position to the resident.
14. As there was no evidence the noise amounted to ASB, the landlord would not be expected to take any formal action against the neighbour. However, if the level of noise was excessive, albeit general household noise, the landlord could have used alternative resolution tools such as mediation, which may have reduced some of the issues.
15. The landlord made enquiries with the developer to see if they could take any steps to improve the noise transference issues. The developer said the property was built within the sound transference tolerances, but in an apartment block with multiple dwellings there would be a certain level of noise. The landlord then advised the resident to report an issue to the warranty provider, but the warranty confirmed it was not responsible for noise issues. It is understood that the resident was frustrated that the options did not result in any changes to the sound transference. However, it was reasonable that the landlord informed her of all the available options.
16. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had misinformed her about the level of noise transference when she purchased the property. The landlord’s shared ownership guide states it will provide all essential information to make an informed decision before residents’ reserve a new home. The resident said the landlord’s sale staff told her the property would likely be quiet, and she would not be able to hear the construction site if she closed the window, which she disputed was true. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of the conversations held between the sales team and the resident.
17. The landlord said the information it provided about the level of noise was based on the property meeting the minimum standards for noise transference. It is understood that the resident felt this was misrepresented by the sales team and used as evidence that the property would not experience noise transference issues. In its complaint response, the landlord said that it could not make any guarantees that the property would be quiet and its marketing material does not reference the development being quiet. It therefore said it had not mis-sold the property. It was reasonable that it said it had taken onboard the resident’s comments and would consider having more information about noise testing when selling properties.
18. When purchasing a property, residents should complete any necessary due diligence to ensure the property is suitable for their needs. It is recognised that the resident thought the information provided by the landlord prevented her from doing her own research into the level of noise. Ultimately if noise was a main priority for the resident when purchasing a property, she should have completed independent investigations, and the landlord cannot be held accountable for her decision not to do so.
19. To resolve the complaint, the resident requested compensation for costs she would incur by reselling the property, most notably due to the decreased valuation. The landlord cannot be held accountable for changes in market trends which are outside of its control, so it would not be obliged to pay such compensation.
20. Overall, while it is recognised the noise had a significant impact on the resident, the landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns. It investigated the noise reports but determined it was everyday living noise and confirmed it was unable to take further action. There is also no evidence that it misinformed the resident about the level of noise during the sale process and the resident had the opportunity before purchasing the property to complete independent investigations.

Complaint handling

21. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the timeframes, it will contact the resident to advise of the new timeframe and send its response within a further 10 working days.
22. The resident raised a complaint on 31 August 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. This was slightly outside of its response timeframe by 2 working days. While the delay was not excessive, in line with its policy the landlord should have contacted the resident about the extended timeframe to manage her expectations.
23. The landlord sent a second stage 1 complaint response on 15 October 2024. The Service’s complaint handling code states “A process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the resident had escalated the complaint so the landlord would not have been on notice to issue a stage 2 response. As such, issuing an extra response did not have a detrimental impact on the resident as it did not necessarily delay completing the complaint process. It is recommended that it adheres to its 2-stage complaint process in future cases to avoid any confusion about what stage the complaint is at.
24. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 December 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 January 2025. This exceeded the response time by 3 working days. However, the landlord told the resident it did not receive her initial request as it was sent to an incorrect email address. This delay was therefore outside of its control.
25. The resident raised a further complaint on 21 February 2025. The landlord declined to respond and referred the resident to the Service for independent review. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy which states it will not accept complaints about “matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy”.
26. The landlord’s complaint handling did not have a notable detrimental impact on the resident. Nonetheless, it should take learnings from the identified shortcomings to prevent failings in future cases.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her concerns about the information provided about the noise level before purchasing the property
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

29. It is recommended that the landlord considers steps to prevent a recurrence of the complaint handling shortcomings.