Sovereign Network Group (202416965)

Background

1. The resident lives in a new build that shares a wall with the house next door. She reported that her house is affected by a vibrating noise when her neighbours use an extractor fan. She then complained about the landlord’s lack of action for the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a vibrating noise in her new build property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a vibrating noise in her new build property.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a vibrating noise in her new build property

5. The landlord has not provided any first-hand evidence for its investigations and position for the issue. Its decision not to do a specialist noise test is unclear and unhelpful. It has not visited to inspect the issue itself. After it offered a referral to the National House-Building Council (NHBC) dispute resolution service in a follow up, there has been limited progress and communication. It comes across as unclear in its processes in respect to effective investigation of defects.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s acknowledgement, apology and compensation is reasonably proportionate to the evident failings and impact in respect to the complaint handling.

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.

Recommendations

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

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. In cases such as this, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what is and is not a defect. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports.
8. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report for complaints about new builds recommends landlords to:
   1. Pursue defects issues effectively with developers on a resident’s behalf.
   2. Ensure there is effective communication between parties and provide clarity on issues that include:
      1. how to report a defect and how it will respond.
      2. what might be considered a defect.
      3. the length of the defect period.
      4. the process for resolving any outstanding dispute between the resident and the developer at the end of defect period.
9. These points will be considered when assessing whether the landlord’s actions and response to the complaint were fair in all the circumstances.
10. The evidence shows that from 26 November 2023, the resident reported a regular vibrating noise in her property. From early December 2023, she said she had established this happened when her neighbour used their extractor fans and cooker hood.
11. The landlord told the resident that her neighbour needed to report the issue, and in February 2024, it confirmed the neighbour had done this. In May 2024, after the resident chased, it said there was an update on its system for the neighbour’s repair, and advised her to speak to them about this. The update noted that the developer had closed the repair, as it was customer responsibility to contact the manufacturer [of the extractor fan].
12. The resident complained on 10 May 2024, and the landlord told her on 31 May 2024 that it would raise a complaint and arrange for an operative to investigate. It then issued a stage 1 response on 6 June 2024. This said that the resident’s neighbour would need to report the issue, as it would need to be taken up with the manufacturer for the extractor fan. However, she contacted the landlord on 9 and 14 June 2024, and the Ombudsman from July 2024, to say she had not received the response.
13. The developer and employer’s agent later carried out an ‘end of defects’ inspection in early October 2024, which noted the issue. Following this, the landlord said the employer’s agent recommended the resident to keep a diary of the noise, the developer inspected on 20 November 2024, and the developer inspected again on 16 December 2024 (after a visit on 11 December 2024 when the neighbour was not in).
14. The landlord also escalated the complaint on 21 November 2024, after the resident was sent the stage 1 response, and it provided a stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It noted inspections by the developer. It said they were yet to confirm what they had done and intended to do, but its after care team would act as a future point of contact about the defect. It acknowledged issues with its communication, delays in initiating an investigation with the developer, and its complaint handling. It awarded £550 and said it was taking steps to improve future service.
15. The landlord updated the resident on 17 January and 21 February 2025. It said the developer was unable to identify where the noise was travelling from, no defective appliance or installation was found, and no fault or issue with the build which could be the cause of the noise was found. It said it was left with few options to progress the issue. It said she could contact the local authority environmental health. It said it could also raise a query to the National House-Building Council (NHBC) Resolution Service to possibly adjudicate on the issue.
16. The resident asked the landlord to raise the issue to the NHBC and in March 2024, it provided the resident with an NHBC policy number to make a claim. She then reported that the NHBC said the landlord needed to make the claim as it was the policy holder. The landlord told her in May 2025 that it had contacted the NHBC to make a claim, but the resident says she has received no further update from the landlord.
17. The landlord’s December 2024 stage 2 response was appropriate to acknowledge issues with its communication and investigation of the issue. The resident experienced delays and time and trouble from November 2023 after she repeatedly contacted it about the issue. Its telling her to ask her neighbour to report issues, including in its stage 1 response, was unhelpful. It would have been reasonable for it to investigate with the resident and her neighbour, rather than make progress dependent on the neighbour making a report. This was not sufficiently mindful of its obligations to the resident.
18. The landlord awarded £450 related to the defect handling and provided some commitments about investigation and communication. It followed this up by providing updates and setting out a position in January and February 2025. This may have been a reasonable resolution. However, the landlord would be expected to provide clear evidence for its position, show it clearly considered information from the resident, and show it made decisions in a reasonable way. This is not evident.
19. The landlord said, when setting out its position, that this was after various inspections and discussions involving specialists such as the developer, the employer’s agent, and contractors. It provides no evidence for this. The landlord and developer’s considerations of various aspects consequently come across as unclear, and the landlord does not show it considered matters in a reasonable way.
20. The resident told the landlord of a 26 April 2024 visit by the developer’s contractor which she had arranged herself. They confirmed her neighbour’s hood extractor made a loud vibration noise in her house, while her own hood extractor could not be heard in her neighbour’s property. They said it was not an electrical issue, and suggested there were issues with installations in the walls or ceilings, or issues with the cavity insulation.
21. The resident told the landlord of a 20 November 2024 visit by someone from the developer as part of an investigation of her neighbour’s extractor fan. She says they confirmed there was nothing wrong with her neighbour’s fan, but said something linked to it was causing noise issues for her, said it was possible pipework was loose and causing vibrations to go through her house, and agreed something needed to be done.
22. The landlord says the fan installation was inspected by the manufacturer, but we have not seen the evidence for this and the manufacturer’s findings. It also says that the build specifications have been assessed. However, it is unclear that it suitably considered the findings the resident reported. It is also unclear if reasonable inspections have been done to confirm there are no practical issues with any installations or the cavity insulation, as the resident says was suggested at visits.
23. The resident separately told us about the 16 December 2024 visit by the developer, arranged at stage 2. She says they agreed there was an issue, but they did not know what was causing it. They were going to get advice from their technical team, mentioned checking the wall cavity, and mentioned the possibility of sound proofing.
24. The landlord does not show that it obtained the developer’s own account of visits and effectively communicated about outcomes. This seems to have led to the resident receiving unclear messaging about whether it is acknowledged there is an issue. This also seems to have led to commitments about further lines of investigation which were not met. These likely caused frustration to her.
25. The landlord told the resident on 29 November 2024 that the employer’s agent had suggested a jointly funded noise inspection. It could have provided clearer evidence about how it considered this, and why it decided not to arrange this. It did not tell the resident why this suggestion was not progressed, but has provided an explanation to us.
26. The landlord says that an acoustic inspection was not considered appropriate as the sound had not been verified, the presence of a defect was unconfirmed, and a test would only confirm general sound transfer performance not localised or specific instances. This comes across as confusing, and does not show sufficient consideration of the resident’s account that when her property was visited, it was agreed there were issues.
27. It would have been helpful for the landlord to show it had a clearer consideration for the resident’s claim that there was a link between the neighbour’s fan and vibration noise in her property, whether this was confirmed at visits, and what the position on this was.
28. We have seen cases where, in similar circumstances, a specialist report has been commissioned to measure sound transference. While it was stated that installations and the build met any technical specifications required by building regulations, a noise test would have been beneficial to confirm that any relevant obligations were being met in practice.
29. This would have also been reasonable since the lease between the landlord and resident makes provisions for determination by an expert, such as a RICS surveyor, where there are any disputes. It is unclear if the landlord had sufficient regard for this, or the benefit of confirming relevant noise obligations were being met in practice, when deciding not to arrange the jointly funded noise inspection suggested by the employer’s agent.
30. The landlord followed up the December 2024 stage 2 response in February 2025, and it set out a position and offered to make a referral to the NHBC’s dispute resolution service. There has been limited progress and communication for this. The landlord seems unclear in its processes, including for actions it might need to take before making an NHBC claim. The resident seems unaware of the landlord’s current position that it considers itself unable to pursue an NHBC resolution.
31. The landlord recently says that a recent restructure of its team responsible for new builds has led to the introduction of various specialisms. It says this means that it could now arrange an inspection with a view to exploring alternative routes to support the resident and the resolution of the issue. This seems appropriate action. However, it is not reasonable that the landlord did not take such action earlier. It is also not reasonable that it does not appear to have previously visited the resident and her neighbour’s properties to inspect the issue itself.
32. We understand there may not be a defect, and that the landlord may not have direct control over the remediation of defects. However, where there may be a dispute over whether there is a defect, it is not unreasonable to expect it to inspect directly.
33. This also seems a necessity if a property owner is to effectively consider if a claim needs to be made to the NHBC for a defect a developer has not acknowledged. This shows an unreasonable lack of engagement and support about the issue, as well as a lack of regard for it being a party to the lease agreement.
34. The landlord’s response to the resident about a vibrating noise in her new build property was overall not reasonable. We order it to arrange an inspection as it suggests, and to arrange a separate specialist noise inspection. These are aimed at increasing its own understanding of the issue, as well as bringing appropriate clarity to whether there is a defect that would be recognised by the NHBC.
35. The resident’s account suggests that she can try to ignore the issue to some extent, but she has likely been caused frustration, distress and inconvenience by the issue, the handling of investigations, and the landlord’s limited support. We also order the landlord to pay some further compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience that will have been caused to the resident by its handling.

36. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
37. The landlord’s handling at stage 1 was not reasonable. Its May 2024 stage 1 acknowledgement was 2 weeks late, and its June 2024 stage 1 response was almost 2 weeks late. This was limited in its investigation, did not meet a commitment to arrange an inspection, and referred the resident back to her neighbour to report the issue, which she had previously done and events had moved on. It is unclear it sent the stage 1 response, and it did not take the opportunity to re-send the response when the resident contacted it twice in June 2024 saying she had not received a response.
38. The landlord acknowledged and responded in timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code at stage 2. It also appropriately acknowledged and apologised for issues with its previous handling of the defect and the complaint. The £100 it awarded for complaint handling is in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been service failure or maladministration, which has adversely affected a resident but had no permanent impact. This is reasonably proportionate to the evident failings and impact in respect to the complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord provides no first-hand evidence of internal discussions, discussions with the developer and employer’s agent, and contractor reports. The landlord’s record keeping therefore comes across as poor and this undermines whether it considered the resident’s reports appropriately.
40. The landlord could reflect on improvements to its record keeping, to ensure it can demonstrate that it has obtained all relevant information for its own decision-making about defects, and that it has considered this in an appropriate way.

Communication

41. The landlord acknowledged issues with its communication and it says it has recently made structural changes to the team that handles defect reports. It could still reflect on how it can more effectively communicate about defect reports, given the communication to the resident evident, and given she does not seem aware that no NHBC referral is currently progressing.