54 North Homes Limited (202506335)

Decision
Case ID	202506335
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	54 North Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 June 2026

 

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about excessive noise from the upstairs flat, such as children playing ball games inside. The landlord was aware of the resident’s physical and mental health conditions. The resident told it that the noise had increased her anxiety, affected her sleep and she had suffered migraines. She said the landlord had not done enough to resolve her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
3. We have also investigated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
   2. No maladministration 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

5. The landlord acknowledged delays in addressing the resident’s concerns and apologised. However, the apology alone was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. While the landlord set out some reasonable next steps in its stage 2 response, it lacked consideration of other methods it could utilise to investigate the reports. It also failed to seek advice on progressing the case after saying it would.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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 provided by a senior member of staff 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 16 July 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of noise. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 July 2026
	Action order The landlord must contact the resident to confirm if the issues of noise continue to be a problem. If so, it should confirm in writing what its position is and set out a timebound action plan of how it plans to respond. It should include information about whom the resident can contact to report any ongoing issues and set out the expected response timescales.	No later than 16 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord review our Spotlight Report on Noise “Time To Be Heard” and consider any changes it may wish to make to its approach to noise complaints considering its recommendations. In particular, the report highlights the need for landlords to develop a specific noise policy, rather than managing all noise reports under ASB procedures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 July 2024	The landlord said the resident raised a formal complaint by phone about its handling of her noise reports.
13 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s noise reports. It confirmed it had since spoken with her neighbours and issued them with a first warning.
13 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that the noise had continued and the landlord had not done anything about it.
12 February 25	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised for delays in addressing the resident’s concerns. It outlined the current position of its investigation and set out next steps, including a scheduled meeting and fortnightly contact. It said it could not take formal action without evidence. It encouraged the resident to contact the local authority’s noise nuisance team regarding monitoring equipment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as she said the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve the issues. She said it had not followed the actions agreed in its complaint response or replied to her further queries. To put things right, the resident would like the landlord to resolve the reported noise nuisance.

 

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
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident reported noise nuisance from the upstairs flat on 23 July 2024. She said the neighbour’s children played ball games inside at night. She told it the stress of it was making her life a misery and she had consulted her GP twice in the past month for anxiety. The resident told us the noise had been an issue for around 3 years.
8. The evidence supplied by the landlord shows the resident reported similar issues in January 2023, October 2023 and May 2024. Following the first report, it asked her to record the noise. However, there is no evidence it took further action in response to the later reports. The landlord’s ASB policy states it would not act against children playing in or around their homes unless they are engaged in more serious nuisance. We have not seen any separate policy covering noise outside of ASB. There is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident how it would handle her reports. This lack of action and explanation continued until the resident raised a formal complaint on 25 July 2024. It was unreasonable that she had to pursue a complaint before it acted.
9. In response to the resident’s July 2024 report, the landlord said it had tried to call her on 2 occasions to discuss the issue, but it was unable to reach her. It sent her a written acknowledgment confirming it had opened an ASB case. It enclosed information about recording incidents and said it would contact the resident again soon to advise on the next steps in its investigation.
10. The landlord did not update the resident on next steps until its stage 1 response, 3 weeks later. It acknowledged and apologised for this delay, which was appropriate. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and issued them with a first warning. It also said it would take further action if the noise continued. There is no evidence it carried out a risk assessment at that stage. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will do so at the earliest opportunity to allow it to tailor any support to the resident’s needs. This meant it had missed an opportunity to consider the impact reported by the resident due to her vulnerabilities.
11. The resident made a further noise report on 16 August 2024. She said the neighbour’s children were screaming, bouncing balls, wrestling, and running with shoes on until 11.30pm. She said she was suffering with a migraine at the time. The landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss this on 29 August 2024. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not set out response timescales, 2 weeks to acknowledge the report was unreasonable in the circumstances. This is particularly since, in its stage 1 response on 13 August 2024, the landlord had already said it would contact the resident to obtain further information to take appropriate action. There is no evidence it did so.
12. The landlord met with the resident on 10 September 2024. It completed a risk assessment and an action plan. It asked her to start recording the noise. This was a reasonable next step so that it could gather evidence to investigate the issue. However, it was inconsistent with its previous statement that it had already issued the neighbour with a warning, which is listed as a form of non-legal enforcement action under its ASB policy. It is unclear how it decided enforcement action was appropriate without first investigating the noise.
13. The landlord also referred the resident to a counselling service due to the reported impact on her mental health. Although delayed, this step was appropriate and showed it had considered her vulnerabilities. It also spoke to the neighbour, which was in line with its policy to use early intervention where possible.
14. On 24 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that although the noise had improved for a short period of time, it had since returned. The landlord said it would speak to the neighbour again. On 18 October 2024 it completed a further risk assessment and reminded the resident to record the noise and about the option to access support. It visited both parties in early November 2024 and again advised the resident to gather evidence. It asked the neighbour to be mindful of noise. It also confirmed it had contacted possible witnesses – the residents of the top floor flat.
15. On 27 November 2024 the resident told the landlord the noise was difficult to capture on her phone. She repeated this a week later and told the landlord she was “really struggling”. The landlord completed an action plan on 3 December 2024 in which it said it would seek further advice on what it could do to help. There is no evidence it did so until after the resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2025, stating the noise had continued. The landlord referred the resident to the local authority for noise monitoring equipment.
16. In its stage 2 response on 12 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged delays in addressing the resident’s concerns and apologised. It confirmed the neighbour was open to mediation. It also promised a follow-up meeting and fortnightly contact. The meeting took place on 18 February 2025, and the landlord explained that it required evidence to act and indicated that it should not have opened an ASB case without it. It referred both parties for mediation.
17. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged some delays and apologised. However, the apology alone was not proportionate in the circumstances given the lengthy periods of inaction and lack of updates we have identified throughout the case. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider compensation for distress and inconvenience due to unreasonable amount of time taken to resolve a situation.
18. Some proposed next steps, including mediation, were reasonable. However, the landlord’s reliance on the resident contacting the local authority for noise monitoring was confusing, particularly as it had already noted the noise was unlikely to meet the local authority’s threshold. It did not take ownership of making enquiries with relevant agencies. There is also no evidence it considered other methods to investigate the noise, such as staff witnessing it or assessing possible noise transference issues. It only took these steps after the stage 2 response and after the local authority had contacted it and provided advice on progressing the case. The mediation did not proceed as the neighbour withdrew. The landlord closed the case in April 2025 due to lack of evidence.
19. The above failures represent shortcomings in the landlord’s process. However, we have not seen any evidence which suggests that the overall outcome would have been different had the landlord taken additional steps earlier. This is because even after it took those, it had concluded there was insufficient evidence for it to take more formal action. However, considering the delays and other failures in its handling of the reports, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put things right, but this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
20. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to close the case in April 2025. This decision falls outside of the scope of this investigation because it occurred after it concluded the complaint and the landlord had not had the opportunity to consider it as part of its internal complaints process. The resident said the noise had continued since and that she had reported this and asked the landlord to reopen the case. She said it had not responded or acted, and that frequent staff changes made it difficult to make contact. To support resolution of the issues, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the reports and agree next steps.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

21. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
22. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 responses in line with its policy timescales. It clearly explained its decision, reasons and next steps.

Learning

23. This case highlights the need for effective expectation management and timely case progression. The landlord has since acknowledged it should have clearly explained its approach to noise from children at the outset. This aligns with the recommendations in our spotlight report on noise to clearly set out what action is possible and avoid raising expectations about outcomes.
24. The landlord has confirmed it has since strengthened its approach by recruiting a dedicated ASB officer to support its case management.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Landlords should ensure all reports and subsequent actions are consistently recorded to provide a complete and accurate account of any ongoing issues.

Communication

26. The landlord in this case attributed delays in its communication and progression of the case to staff being away from the business. Landlords should ensure there are effective arrangements in place so residents can continue to report issues and receive responses during periods when individual staff members are unavailable.