London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202207034)

Background

1. The resident and her son live in a Victorian building that has been converted into flats. She reported noise from the upstairs property (‘the neighbour’) and said it could be due to poor building insulation. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of noise reports.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise reports.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of noise reports.

4. The landlord’s assessment of the neighbour’s flooring was unclear. It acknowledged the noise was disturbing the resident and her son but did not offer mediation or inspect the building.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

5. The landlord took too long to send its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. However, the landlord acknowledged the failing, apologised and awarded 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.

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident said she wanted the landlord to move her to a different property. We have explained this is not an outcome we can provide.
7. The resident said there were issues with the property next-door. These were not included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord. We have therefore not included these issues in our assessment.

What we have considered

8. In April and May 2023, the resident reported noise from the upstairs flat. She said she could hear the television, conversations and stomping. The resident said the noise was constant and mentally draining. She asked how she could move to a new property. The landlord advised the resident to do a mutual exchange.
9. On 4 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the neighbour about the noise. On 24 May 2023 it visited the resident and the neighbour. The landlord has not sent us records of the meetings.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord after the meeting. She said at the meeting it was confirmed the neighbour’s carpet was old and the underlay had deteriorated. The resident told the landlord she was concerned it had written to the neighbour about ASB. She said the noise issues were due to the properties being poorly constructed and lacking soundproofing. The landlord responded and confirmed it would consult internally about soundproofing. It did not respond to resident’s concerns about the flooring. The landlord subsequently told the resident it did not do soundproofing.
11. In its stage 1 response the landlord restated it would not do soundproofing as it was not cost effective. It said the neighbour had adequate flooring “with the addition of scatter rugs”. It was not clear if the landlord meant the neighbour had rugs, or if the flooring was adequate if he got rugs.
12. After we contacted the landlord it sent its stage 2 response. It said the noise was not ASB and it could not take enforcement action. The landlord said it would not do soundproofing in any circumstances. It said the quickest way for the resident to move would be to complete a mutual exchange.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms household noise is not ASB. The landlord was correct when it told the resident it could not take enforcement action. It acknowledged the resident and her son were disturbed by ‘every day’ noise from the upstairs property. However, it is not clear if the neighbour’s property had suitable flooring. The landlord also did not consider other responses such as offering mediation or doing an inspection. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise reports. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £175 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says if additional time is needed to provide a response the landlord will agree this with the resident. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
15. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 June 2023. It acknowledged her complaint on 26 June 2023.
16. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. This was 9 working days after the response time required by its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and awarded £20 compensation.
17. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request.
18. The resident chased the landlord for a response and then contacted us. After we wrote to the landlord it sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. This was 85 working days after the time required by its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and awarded £200 compensation. In July 2025 it told the resident it had failed to process the payment and increased the compensation to £300.
19. The landlord acknowledged it took too long to send its complaint responses. The compensation award falls within the range in our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely effected the resident. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord did not send us notes from the visits it made to the resident and the neighbour.

Communication

21. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about her complaint in a timely manner.