Southend on Sea City Council (202537178)

Decision
Case ID	202537178
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southend on Sea City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 April 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about excessive noise coming from a boiler in a neighbouring flat. He said the noise was disturbing his sleep and affecting his quality of life. The landlord was aware the resident was under palliative care.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
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 the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

Whilst there were delays in the landlord locating the noise source, it addressed this in its complaint responses and made attempts to put things right. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations after logging a service request. It failed to show it fully investigated the noise at night when the resident said he was most affected. It failed to acknowledge his health concerns or the impact of the delayed vent cover repair, and some of its advice appeared contradictory.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Whilst there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, the landlord recognised this and made reasonable attempts to put things right. Its acknowledgement and response at stage 2 were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 07 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of noise nuisance. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct any compensation it has already paid. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 May 2026
3	Completing the works order The landlord must take all steps to install the external air vent cover promptly, and in any event by the due date. Or provide evidence if it has done so already. If the landlord cannot complete the installation in this time, it must explain why by the due date and provide evidence supporting its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works.	No later than 21 May 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident about his noise concerns. It must refer to its policies and procedures when explaining what options, if any, it may be able to explore further. This must be followed up in writing, with a copy provided to us by the due date.	No later than 21 May 2026
5	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report in relation to the handling of the reports of noise nuisance. It must set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 21 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the attributed £50 it offered for its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis the compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 October 2024	The resident told the landlord he was experiencing noise disturbance from one of 3 neighbouring flats. He said the “loud humming” disrupted his sleep. The landlord said it would treat the report as a service request.
1 November 2024	Following a call to the landlord chasing a contractor’s attendance, the resident complained to the landlord. He said the noise only occurred when the neighbour’s heating was on. He said it was too loud in his bedroom, so he slept on his living room sofa where it was quieter.
25 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay. It said it mistakenly misfiled the complaint as a service request.
9 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for misfiling the complaint. It said it attended several times to locate the noise source. Once identified, an inspection of the neighbour’s boiler found no faults. It said it would install an external air vent cover at the neighbour’s flat to reduce cold air entering. This would hopefully reduce the boiler use. It offered £100 compensation for ‘time and trouble’ in pursuing the matter and for any distress and inconvenience caused.
7 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint because he said the noise kept him awake at night causing negative effects on his health. He said the landlord had failed to install the vent cover and wanted it done urgently.
7 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the outstanding vent cover, stating it would be made a priority. It said whilst the vent cover might help, there was little else it could do as the noise was normal. It suggested discussing the issue with his tenancy officer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the ongoing noise was severely disrupting his sleep. He said it caused him stress and anxiety and impacted his quality of life. He wanted the issue resolved.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance
Finding	Maladministration

The day after the resident’s report on 11 October 2024, the landlord considered asking him to submit noise recordings and an activity log. Whilst it spoke to him that day, it is unclear if it made these suggestions to the resident.
The landlord inspected one of the neighbouring flats on 24 October 2024. It did not find any issues. Whilst it responded promptly, it is unclear why it only inspected one of the flats when the resident raised concerns about 3. However, the records show it spoke to the resident 4 days later to discuss a contractor’s attendance to investigate the issue.
On 1 November 2024 the resident complained about the ongoing noise following his discussion with the landlord about when a contractor could attend. The landlord mistakenly logged it as a service request. It apologised for its error on 25 November 2024, after the resident chased a response. After logging the service request, it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted the resident to explain how it intended to address the issue. There is no evidence it communicated with him until he chased for a further response. Its failure to manage the resident’s expectations about what steps it could take, and when, likely caused him distress.
The resident explained the noise mainly occurred when it was cold and at night. On 6 December 2024 a contractor inspected during the day and identified no issues. There is no evidence detailing what the inspection involved or where it took place. The inspection was 25 working days after the resident’s complaint. It is unclear why there was a delay in investigating the issue, given that the landlord was aware from the October inspection that the issue remained unresolved.
The records state the contractor planned to investigate further that evening. Whilst it was positive that the time of day factored into the investigations, it is unclear whether an evening inspection took place. This is because the landlord has not provided us with copies of any reports or related notes.
The landlord noted if it could not locate the noise source, it would carry out sound monitoring to record the noise levels and frequency. It was reasonable that it considered this as an option in its investigation.
On 9 December 2024 the landlord identified a neighbour’s boiler as the source of the noise. It inspected the boiler and found no faults. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged the time taken to locate the source. It explained it took longer than planned to identify the issue, despite making several visits at various times of day. It offered compensation for the time taken and said it would install a vent cover to potentially reduce the neighbour’s boiler use.
In the resident’s escalation he mentioned the detrimental impact the lack of sleep had on his health. He noted the landlord had not installed the vent cover as promised. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the outstanding vent cover. However, it failed to acknowledge any distress the delay may have caused. There is no evidence to show the landlord assessed the noise levels in the resident’s bedroom at night, to fully understand the impact.
The landlord said besides installing the vent cover, there was nothing else it could do as the noise was part of the normal boiler operation. It apologised it could not resolve the issue and suggested the resident discuss it further with his tenancy officer. This advice may have appeared contradictory, given it had said there were no other options available. It would have been helpful to have explained what support the tenancy officer could offer. The lack of explanation likely caused confusion and distress to the resident.
There is no evidence to show it completed the vent cover installation. We have therefore made an order to complete the installation if it has not done so already. We have also made an order to contact the resident about his noise concerns. The landlord should reference its policies and procedures when explaining what options, if any, it may be able to explore further.
The landlord offered £100 compensation. It said this was for ‘time and trouble’ in pursuing the matter as well as any distress and inconvenience caused. However, it was not clear how much of the £100 it attributed to its investigation of the noise, or to its complaint handling failure. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation, we have attributed the redress equally, with £50 considered to be for each complaint element.
The landlord’s compensation offer does not proportionately reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have therefore made an order to pay £250, in addition to the attributed £50 compensation offered in its complaint response. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant code is the 2024 edition. The complaint response timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy align with the Code.
The landlord treated the resident’s initial report of noise disturbance as a service request. This was in line with its complaint policy which said it would follow this process when first informed of an issue. It explained its reasoning to the resident, in line with its policy.
On 18 November 2024 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy it had not responded to his complaint raised on 1 November 2024. Having to chase a response likely caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and apologised for the delay, stating it was misfiled in error. The acknowledgement came 16 working days after receipt of the complaint. This was not in line with the Code which sets out a timeframe of 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code from the date of the acknowledgement. However, the overall response time was late, given the acknowledgement was delayed. In its response, the landlord apologised and offered the attributed £50 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused. The was in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation within 3 working days and provided its stage 2 complaint response 20 working days later. This was in line with the Code.
In summary, whilst there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint, it recognised this and made reasonable attempts to put things right.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points in its complaint responses. We have therefore made an order to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has not provided evidence of its inspections. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records.

Communication

The landlord provided limited correspondence records, which restricted our ability to assess how it communicated with the resident. This highlights the importance of effective recording, retention and availability of correspondence, as set out in our KIM report.