Southern Housing (202407062)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407062

Southern Housing

16 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 response to reports of noise.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership leasehold of a 2-bedroom flat. The resident purchased 40 percent of the property on 9 March 2023. The building is a new-build and the developer handed it over in February 2023.
  2. On 20 December 2023 the resident reported noise from an upstairs property to the landlord’s ‘after sales’ team. The resident described the noise as “thudding” or “heavy walking”. The landlord asked the resident to contact the team that dealt with anti-social behaviour (ASB). The resident responded and said he felt it was a soundproofing issue rather than ASB.
  3. On 11 January 2024 the resident complained about the handling of his noise report. He said the landlord knew the building was poorly constructed but had not engaged with his concerns.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 February 2024. It said it had not provided enough information on how it investigated noise and apologised. The landlord confirmed the building met building control standards. It said acoustic tests were done before the property was handed over. The landlord set-out the test results, and said soundproofing met regulatory requirements. It said its home ownership team would investigate the noise and confirmed it had logged a case.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 February 2024 as he said the landlord had not addressed his concerns.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 19 March 2024. It said residents had reported defects, but these were not related “to building control sign-off”. The landlord provided an email address to report defects. It said the building met the required standards, however, residents were welcome to arrange a noise transference survey. The landlord said if a survey found non-compliance with noise transference regulations it would reimburse the survey costs and do the necessary repairs.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us on 21 May 2024. He said the landlord had not acted on the noise from the upstairs property, which was continuous. The resident said he wanted the landlord to inspect the upstairs property, provide mediation and review soundproofing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of noise

  1. The purpose of this assessment is not to determine whether noise nuisance occurred, as this is not our role. We will, however, assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports, considering the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord handles noise nuisance under its ASB policy. However, the policy says “noise transference due to sound insulation” is not ASB. The ASB policy says the landlord will take the following actions in response to ASB complaints:
    1. Agree an action plan with the resident.
    2. Investigate, gather evidence and keep the resident updated.
    3. Work in partnership with other appropriate agencies.
    4. Let the resident know when a case is resolved or referred for closure.
  3. On 23 December 2023 the resident contacted the ‘after sales’ team about noise from an upstairs property. The landlord said ASB was handled by its ‘shared ownership team’ and sent the team’s contact details. The resident explained he felt the issue was soundproofing and a possible building defect. He said it was unfair to the neighbour to log the report as ASB. The landlord responded on 28 December 2023 and confirmed the scheme met building standards.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the team that dealt with noise reports. However, its explanation as to why it handled noise reports as ASB was inadequate. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about soundproofing also risked appearing dismissive. The landlord did not engage with the resident’s concern that handling the report as ASB was unfair and ineffective.
  5. On 18 January 2024 the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets. It asked the resident to complete 2 week’s evidence gathering and return the forms by 1 February 2024. The landlord said if the forms were not returned in this timeframe, it would close the report. The landlord followed its ASB policy by seeking to gather evidence. However, it did not allow sufficient time to complete evidence gathering, particularly as the forms were sent and returned by post.
  6. After the resident complained about the handling of his report, the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 2 February 2024. The landlord apologised and acknowledged it failed to explain how it investigated noise. It said the building met building control standards. The landlord said the floor insulation had been tested and met regulatory requirements. This meant it did not investigate noise reports as a defect in the first instance. It said the home ownership team would investigate the noise and advise on next steps. The landlord confirmed it had logged. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining how it handled noise reports.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2024 and said it was closing his report as he had not provided evidence. As set out previously the landlord had provided insufficient time for the evidence to be returned. The landlord  only explained 3 days before why it was handling the report as ASB and there is no evidence it followed its ASB policy and agreed an action plan with the resident.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 February 2024. He said the noise report should be considered in the context of numerous other building issues. The resident said the landlord sent diary sheets but had not contacted him about the noise report. He said handling the noise as ASB was insensitive, and the noise app and diary sheets did not capture the frequency or nature of the noise. The resident asked for a copy of the ASB policy and specialist testing to confirm his flat met building regulations. He asked to speak with a manager, and for the landlord to inspect the upstairs property and arrange mediation with the neighbour.
  9. On 13 February 2024 the landlord completed a ‘mediation referral’ form and requested a ‘professional witness’. The request appears to relate to a different ASB case reported by the resident and not the noise report.
  10. In its stage 2 response sent on 19 March 2023 the landlord restated the information provided at stage 1. It said the building was compliant with regulations, but residents could arrange their own sound transference survey. The landlord provided an email address to report defects. It said it was happy to arrange a call with a manager. The landlord said if the survey found non-compliance with sound insulation regulations it would reimburse the costs and fix the issues.

Events after the landlord sent the final complaint response

  1. The resident confirmed the noise issues are unresolved. He said there was noise from the upstairs property during the day and night, and his sleep, work and wellbeing were affected.
  2. The defects liability period (DLP) ended on 27 February 2025. The landlord said at the end of the DLP several residents reported similar noise issues. On 10 September 2025 the landlord told usit had engaged consultants to investigate and advise if remedial works were needed. It said it would contact residents to arrange appointments.
  3. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  4. The landlord apologised for failing to explain how it investigated noise reports. It followed its ASB policy and logged the report and provided diary sheets. However, contrary to its ASB policy it did not complete an action plan with the resident. It did not allow sufficient time for evidence submission and when the resident said this was a problem it did not consider reopening the report. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s requests for mediation or a property inspection. The landlord closed the report while the issue was ongoing. The resident made subsequent noise reports, however, the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate or resolve the issue at this stage.  As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  5. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and to pay £300 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that had an adverse effect on a resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 January 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. This is contrary to the Code.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 February 2024. This is 7 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  4. On 13 February 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the request on 27 February 2024. This is 6 working days after the timeframe required by the Code.
  5. It provided a stage 2 response on 19 March 2023. This is 6 working days after the timeframe required by the Code. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for a copy of its ASB policy.
  6. We found service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it did not follow the response requirements and timeframes set out in the Code. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure in the service provided to a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation, this comprises:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident and the Ombudsman and provide:
      1. A timeline for the investigation works it has commissioned (referred to in paragraph 21 of this report).
      2. A communication plan for how it will disseminate information about the investigation and works arising to residents.