Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202451639)

Decision
Case ID	202451639
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block. In November 2024, she made a complaint to the landlord about external noise she could hear in her home. She said the landlord had not told her about the noise before she accepted the tenancy. She later complained about the level of rent.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of rent and service charges.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The complaint about the level of rent and service charges is outside of jurisdiction.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

Level of rent and service charges

4. This part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction because we may not consider issues about rent or service charge levels, or any increases to them.

Noise

5. The landlord said the traffic noise was expected due to the property’s location and that the resident would have noticed this during the viewing. It also provided information about noise reduction, environmental health, rehousing, and details about the property advert.

The complaint

6. Although the landlord significantly delayed its stage 2 response, it acknowledged this and offered an appropriate remedy.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

Our recommendation
The landlord should inspect the property to identify whether there are any steps or considerations it can take to minimise the level of noise.
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it previously offered her for its stage 2 complaint handling delays if it has not paid this already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that noise inside her home was disruptive. She said the landlord had not told her about traffic noise before her tenancy started. She also said that, although it had advertised the property a one‑bedroom flat, it was effectively a studio.
11 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the advert included all property details. It also explained it would not usually know about noise issues unless a previous resident had reported them. It gave the resident advice about applying for rehousing.
4 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She repeated that the noise levels were high, the property had been advertised incorrectly, and the rent was too high. She said the landlord had not fully addressed her concerns.
18 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that when the resident signed the tenancy agreement, she would have been aware of the rent. It repeated that it would not have been aware of traffic noise before the tenancy began. It noted that the resident viewed the property in April 2022 and should have raised any concerns about noise before signing the agreement. It repeated its earlier advice on rehousing options. It acknowledged a delay in its complaint process, apologised, and offered £150 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the lack of action taken. She said her rent and service charges had increased significantly over 2 years. She also said constant traffic noise was affecting her ability to sleep and work. She wants the landlord to consider compensation, refund increased rent and service charges, address the noise issue, and support her with rehousing.

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	Level of rent and service charges
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

7. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the level of her rent and service charges. We may not consider complaints about the amount of rent or service charges, or any increases to these. We will therefore no investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. If the resident wants to challenge the amount of rent or service charges she pays, she can consider taking he dispute to a court or tribunal because they are best placed to consider this.

Complaint	Reports of noise
Finding	No maladministration

8. The resident first reported noise concerns to the landlord on 28 October 2024. She reported that noise entered through her bedroom and living room windows and later said the building’s structure was poor, which she believed contributed to the noise. The landlord responded to the resident on 30 October 2024 and said the building met regulations for sound insulation and that some traffic noise was expected due to the property’s location. It advised her to consider noise‑reducing measures and signposted her to environmental health as it explained it could not take further action for the noise.
9. In November 2024, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the noise. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the one‑week bidding cycle allowed residents to make an informed decision about the property, including viewing and assessing the location, before signing the tenancy agreement. It said it would not be aware of noise issues unless another resident told it about this, and it advised the resident of her rehousing options.
10. The resident escalated her complaint in December 2024 as she felt the noise had not been addressed. In its stage 2 response, the landlord repeated its position that she should have raised these concerns before she signed the tenancy agreement, as she had viewed the property so it felt she would have known about the noise. It again referred her to rehousing options.
11. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it promptly responded to the noise report, correctly,identified the noise as environmental, and directed the resident to noise-reducing measures and the environmental health team at the council. It also explained that the building met sound insulation regulations, that some traffic noise was to be expected due to the property’s location near the road, and that the resident had an opportunity to consider this before signing the tenancy agreement.
12. This was a reasonable and proportionate response. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the noise and the building’s structure, suggested practical solutions, and advised of her options to move elsewhere. This was in line with its antisocial and nuisance behaviour policy, which said it would not investigate noise caused by typical day-to-day activities. However, we have recommended it inspect the property to identify whether there are any steps or considerations it can take to minimise the level of noise.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Its policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days. If the landlord needs more time at stage 2, it must tell the resident and explain the reasons. The policy is consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
14. In this case, the resident complained on 1 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on the same day and issued its response on 11 November 2024, which was 7 working days after the complaint. This met its policy timescale.
15. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 4 December 2024.The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 December 2024. It informed the resident that it would be extending the response timescale due to the festive period and a high volume of cases. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 March 2025 and said it would provide a response by 21 March 2025. It issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2025, which was 72 working days after the escalation. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £150 compensation.
16. Overall, the landlord met its complaint handling obligations at stage 1. There was a significant delay in issuing the stage 2 response. Although the landlord told the resident that the timescale would be extended, the delay remained substantial. However, the landlord acknowledged this and offered a suitable remedy, which was in line with our remedies guidance failures that have negatively affected a resident.

Learning

17. The landlord should consider reviewing the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily. It recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.