City of York Council (202412543)

Background

1. In March 2024 the resident reported noise from the flat above and the communal entrance door. She later complained that the property lacked adequate sound insulation and that the landlord had not resolved her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise and vibration nuisance.
   2. Request for sound insulation works.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of noise and vibration nuisance.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the request for insulation works.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord assessed the resident’s reports under its noise policy procedure. It involved its neighbourhood enforcement officer, explained the statutory nuisance threshold, and took proportionate action.
5. The landlord treated the resident’s request for sound insulation as a capital involvement, not a responsive repair. It explained its position and applied its policy consistently.
6. The landlord delayed its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses beyond its published timescales. Those delays caused likely inconvenience and frustration.

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.

7. We have considered whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its noise complaint procedure when responding to the resident’s reports of noise. It is not our role to determine whether a statutory nuisance has occurred.
8. The resident first reported noise disturbance on 26 March 2024. She described hearing domestic noise from the flat above and said the communal entrance door was slamming. She continued to report incidents through April 2024 and provided diary-style accounts of the disturbance.
9. The landlord’s noise complaint procedure requires it to log complaints, explain the process, assess whether the reported noise amounts to a nuisance, and consider proportionate informal or formal action.
10. On 1 May 2024 the landlord’s neighbourhood enforcement officer logged the complaint and explained the statutory nuisance threshold and the available options to the resident. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. The officer recorded that the resident considered the noise to be normal living noise.
11. The resident continued to raise concerns in August 2024 including reports of raised voices and disturbance during the night. In September 2024 the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour referring to specific reported incidents and tenancy obligations. This action was reasonable as it demonstrated that the landlord escalated its response when further reports were made.
12. Throughout the correspondence, the resident maintained that the issue arose from structural sound transmission rather than neighbour misconduct. The landlord assessed the resident’s reports under its noise complaints procedure and explained that the noise described did not meet the statutory nuisance threshold. While the resident disagreed with that assessment, the evidence shows the landlord logged the complaint, explained its reasoning, and took proportionate informal and formal steps.
13. The evidence shows the landlord logged the reports, explained the statutory nuisance threshold, assessed the noise under its procedure, issues a warning letter in September 2024, and adjusted the communal door mechanism following the repair report These actions demonstrate that it followed its noise complaints procedure. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibration nuisance.

14. On 26 March 2024 the resident reported intrusive noise and raised concerns about the building’s sound transmission. She stated that the noise arose from normal daily living but was amplified by the structure. On 28 March 2024 she clarified that she was not seeking enforcement action against the neighbour but wanted the building fabric addressed.
15. Internal records in May 2024 confirm that the neighbourhood enforcement officer assessed the reports and determined that the noise did not meet enforcement thresholds and the noise was domestic living noise. Internal communication further recorded that the landlord assessed the property’s sound insulation and deemed it adequate and that there was no identified structural defect. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to ensure there was no disrepair.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy requires it to maintain the structure and fabric of the building. It does not require it to upgrade properties to improved acoustic standards where no defects exist. The internal records categorised additional insulation as an improvement or capital upgrade rather than a repair. Officers recorded that there was no funding allocation for retrofit insulation and that the property met the landlord’s current standard. Further, case law has established that there is no legal requirement for landlords to retrospectively fit improved sound installation. Therefore, in the absence of any disrepair, there was no obligation for the landlord to improve the sound insulation, and it was reasonable for it to decline to take such action. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for sound insulation works.

17. We consider whether the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy and our complaint handling code when responding to the resident’s complaint.
18. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 24 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 May 2024.
19. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 July 2024. This was approximately 27 working days working days after acknowledgement and 17 working days outside the published timescale.
20. The resident requested escalation on 14 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 16 July 2024.
21. Th policy states that a landlord should issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days and should not extend the response beyond three calendar months from escalation.
22. The landlord issued holding emails on 9 August, 6 September and 25 September 2024 explaining that it required further clarification before issuing its final response. It issued the stage 2 response on 25 October 2024.
23. This was 73 working days after the acknowledgement and 53 working days outside the 20-working day target. It also exceeded the maximum three calendar month period set out in the policy.
24. Although the landlord communicated extensions, the overall delay significantly exceeded its published timescales. The delays prolonged the complaint process and caused avoidable inconvenience. However, the evidence does not show that the delays affected the substantive outcome of the complaint.
25. Further, the landlord did not address all the issues raised in the complaint. The resident also reported noise from the hallway caused by a communal entrance door which was noisy and slammed. As the resident had raised this matter it was reasonable for her to expect the landlord to respond to it. The resident was likely caused frustration by the landlord’s failure to investigate this concern. It meant it also missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage.
26. The evidence suggests the landlord attended and adjusted the mechanism on at least one occasion, but it is not clear if that resolved the issue. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to engage a contractor to inspect the door to try to resolve the noise issues, if this matter remains unresolved.
27. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £100 in recognition of its failure in responding to the resident’s complaint within its published timescales.

Learning

28. The landlord should ensure that its records clearly demonstrate how vulnerability is considered when assessing service requests. Records should show the reasoning behind key decisions.
29. The landlord should strengthen oversight of stage 2 complaints to ensure responses are issued within its published timescales. Where extensions are required, it should monitor progress to prevent excessive delay.
30. The landlord should also ensure that complaint responses clearly distinguish between responsive repairs and capital improvement works to avoid misunderstanding.