London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202403156)

Decision
Case ID	202403156
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 February 2026

Background

1. Between May 2022 and November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her upstairs neighbour was causing excessive noise. She told it this was affecting her health. The resident later complained because she felt the landlord had not taken any action in response to her reports. She told us that she lives with conditions affecting her sight, mobility, and mental health. The landlord was aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs flat.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs flat.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs flat

5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of the noise in line with its ASB policy. However, it acknowledged this and had put this right during its internal complaints procedure, in line with our dispute resolution principles.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to respond to the stage 2 complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, it had put this right in line with our dispute resolution principles by apologising and offering proportionate compensation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The resident told us that the issues are ongoing and that she is awaiting the landlord’s response to several queries she raised. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to address any outstanding queries and sets out an action plan that explains what it can do within its powers to address her concerns.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2022	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had reported noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour on several occasions, but it had done nothing to assist her. She said that the noise included banging, running up and down stairs, and loud music. She said that the noise penetrated through her flat because her neighbour had no carpet. She told the landlord that this was causing her distress and affecting her health. She asked it to warn the neighbour in writing about his behaviour and to consider installing soundproofing and a carpet upstairs.
10 November 2022	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, apologised for its lack of communication and offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord said that it would arrange for a member of staff to contact the resident the following day to discuss her concerns about the noise. It also confirmed that it had contacted her neighbour and asked him to be more mindful of his actions. However, it would need evidence to escalate the matter. It attached diary sheets for the resident to complete. It told the resident that her neighbour asked that she not approach his visitors. It also advised her about when she might want to consider contacting the police or the local authority’s noise nuisance team.
11 November 2022	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said that: she understood evidence was required, however she had reported each incident to the landlord and had witnesses she had not received any support from the landlord to prepare her for the long administrative strategy of gathering evidence she would like to know more about how the neighbour would be mindful of his actions and asked if the landlord had issued him with a written warning the neighbour had made derogatory statements towards her when she recognised and spoke to one of his visitors   The resident asked the landlord what actions it had taken to resolve her concerns and whether it had considered soundproofing. She explained that she was spending less time in her property due to not having peace and feeling unsafe.
19 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated its stage 1 position and apologised again for its lack of communication. It said that it had spoken with the resident in November and December 2022 about collating evidence using the Noise App and diary sheets. On 20 January 2023 the resident said that she could not return the diary sheets because of personal circumstances. On 17 March 2023 she said had been living away from home and had no evidence yet. The landlord said it was mutually agreed that it would close the case and that the resident would contact it if any further issues arose. It explained that, due to data protection, it could not share the details of its conversations with the neighbour.   The landlord confirmed that following the resident’s further reports in August 2023, it had opened a new ASB case which remained under investigation. It said the member of staff managing the case had attempted to contact the resident but had been unable to reach her. It said it would continue to contact the resident with updates.   The landlord also apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response to the complaint and offered the resident £240 compensation. This was in addition to the £250 it previously offered for lack of communication.   The landlord confirmed that it issued both compensation payments to the resident by cheque.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues she had reported to it. She said that the noise continues to impact her health and wellbeing. To put things right, the resident asked for further compensation, for the landlord to ensure her neighbour installs a carpet in his property, to be rehoused, or for the neighbour to be rehoused.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs flat.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told us that the noise has affected her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical evidence to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told us that the noise nuisance continued into 2023 and that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports. We understand that this matter, along with other concerns raised by the resident, have been the subject of further complaints. However, the resident had not previously referred these complaint responses to this Service. Therefore, our investigation focused on the complaint which exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 19 December 2023.
9. In her complaint to this Service, the resident told us that she was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of harassment and stalking. We may not consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised these concerns with the landlord as part of this complaint. Therefore, we have not considered them further. Our investigation focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.

What we have investigated

10. The landlord confirmed that on 11 May 2022, 6 June 2022, and 7 July 2022, the resident reported excessive noise from her upstairs neighbour. She said the noise included shouting, banging doors, running on the stairs, and loud music. She also told the landlord that the neighbour had no floor covering and that the noise caused her flat to shake. She told it that this impacted her health. The resident said she had raised these concerns with the landlord previously, but we have not been provided with evidence of earlier reports.
11. Under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, reports of noise may be recorded as ASB where it is persistent, deliberate, or targeted. The policy says that the landlord will take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities when deciding how to categorise the report. It says that it logs all cases reported to it and assigns priority based on risk, with an initial response ranging from 1 to 3 working days.
12. We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed the risk, considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, or contacted her within the timescales set out in its policy. It did not explain the next steps until after she made a formal complaint about its handling of the case. This was almost 6 months after her initial report. The landlord’s lack of action during this period was unreasonable.
13. On 10 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that it needed evidence of the noise to investigate further. It provided diary sheets and later informed her about the Noise App. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that evidence was necessary for it to escalate the matter and to offer different ways to collect it. It also took interim steps by speaking to the neighbour and asking him to be more mindful of his actions.
14. In her escalation the resident said she understood the need for evidence but was dissatisfied that the landlord had not prepared her for the administrative process involved. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining this at the time of her initial reports.
15. The resident also told the landlord that the lack of floor covering in her neighbour’s property made the noise worse. The landlord did not comment on this and it would have been reasonable for it to do so. We understand, however, that the landlord has since considered the issue of appropriate floor coverings following later reports.
16. The landlord acted reasonably and in keeping with its ASB policy by maintaining contact with the resident after November 2022 about gathering evidence. The resident told it on 2 occasions that she was not able to provide evidence because of her personal circumstances or because she was away from the property. The landlord said that it agreed with the resident that it would close the case and confirmed that she should contact it if further issues arose. The landlord’s decision to close the case was consistent with its ASB policy which says that it may do so in cases where it had not received evidence it requested to progress the case.
17. We understand that the resident reported further incidents in August and November 2023 and the landlord opened a new ASB case. This resulted in the landlord taking further action, including asking both parties to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement and issuing a warning to the neighbour. As these events were not part of the complaint referred to us, we have not considered them further.
18. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports of the noise in line with its ASB policy. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its lack of communication in response to the resident’s reports. It set out the evidence it required to progress the case and offered £250 compensation for the impact of its failings. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failings which adversely affected the resident. After its stage 2 response, the landlord remained in contact with the resident about the new case it opened in August 2023. This was in keeping with the promise it made to keep her updated.
20. Although the landlord said in its stage 2 response that feedback allows it to review its services, it has not shown specific learning from the failings identified in its complaint investigation. We have included our comments on learning in the final section of this report.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaints Handling Code published in March 2022 (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
22. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its process in line with its policy. However, it issued its stage 2 response over 12 months outside of the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for this delay. Its offer of compensation of £240 proportionate and was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident. Similarly to the main complaint, the landlord has not demonstrated any specific learning relating to this failure. However, it has explained to the resident that it was experiencing delays in its service.

Learning

23. The landlord should ensure that all ASB reports are triaged at the outset to decide whether they fall under its ASB policy. It should also tell residents at the earliest opportunity if evidence will be required before it can take further action. In this case, its failure to explain this meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Overall, the landlord’s records were satisfactory.

Communication

25. There was a lengthy delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and it did not provide updates during this period. Where delays occur, providing timely updates may help reduce the frustration caused to residents.