Darlington Borough Council (202452047)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground‑floor flat and began reporting noise soon after the upstairs neighbour moved in. The resident is vulnerable with mobility and other health concerns. She told the landlord the noise disturbed her sleep and affected her wellbeing. She also described low‑level noises such as talking, laughing and coughing, which she felt were directed at her and caused her distress.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
3. We have also considered the complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property

6. The landlord’s approach was not consistent with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) and vulnerability policies, did not update the resident as promised and did not tailor its response in light of the resident’s vulnerability or the ongoing pattern of reports.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord handled its responses at both stages of the complaint process within the required timescales.

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.

8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it would step in early when residents report noise. The policy says the landlord should look at each case on its facts and contact residents quickly within 1 working day for serious reports, or within 5 days for other reports. The policy also allows the landlord to work with other agencies, use noise monitoring, offer mediation, and agree behaviour plans.
9. The policy gives examples of nuisance such as loud music, shouting, banging doors, DIY noise and other behaviour that disturbs neighbours.
10. The landlord’s vulnerability policy says it will make reasonable adjustments. This includes offering or referring victims of ASB for extra support through internal teams or outside agencies.
11. The resident said the noise had been a problem soon after the neighbour moved in. For this investigation, we looked at the landlord’s handling of the noise from 2024 to the landlord’s final response on 18 March 2025 and any commitments it made in that response. This is because complaints should normally be raised within 12 months so the evidence is current and fair.
12. From January to mid‑2024, the landlord logged the resident’s reports and completed a risk assessment. It visited both homes, spoke with the police, and arranged for a surveyor to check whether insulation or soundproofing could help. These steps were reasonable as they helped gather evidence, understand the impact, and respond in a proportionate way.
13. On 27 February 2024, the landlord carried out a risk assessment with a risk score of 30. A high score could indicate the resident could face more harm or impact.
14. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it had logged her report. It said it assessed the case as medium/high risk, started an investigation, and would contact her within 5 working days to agree an action plan. The records do not show that the landlord contacted her or agreed an action plan with 5 working days as agreed.
15. On 28 February 2024, the landlord said it would not class the case as medium/high and said the issue was noise transmission which was not a significant ASB. It is not clear if it updated the resident about this change or explained what it meant for her case.
16. The landlord reclassified the case the next day, which was not reasonable given the type and timing of the noise reported. By lowering the risk, the landlord did not fully consider how the noise affected the resident or the potential impact on the resident or her individual circumstances. This decision was also inconsistent with its own records showing it was taking steps in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour.
17. The resident contacted the landlord again in March and April 2024 to report more noise. The landlord visited her in April and said it did not have enough evidence to take formal action. It told her to keep recording the noise. This was not reasonable and could seem dismissive because the resident had already recorded several incidents and involved the police, and the landlord did not explain how more recordings would help or change the outcome.
18. On 14 May 2024, the landlord discussed with the resident the types of support it could offer and made a referral to a peer mentor programme. Providing information about available support and making an appropriate referral was a positive step and, in itself, a reasonable action.
19. From May to September 2024, the resident often reported noise problems, including disturbances late at night and early in the morning. In June 2024, the landlord discussed options such as adding insulation and carrying out noise testing. These actions were reasonable and showed that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
20. The reports carried on into late October and early November 2024. During this time, the resident also told the landlord that she was having cancer treatment. On 18 November 2024, the landlord wrote to her and opened a new, low‑priority ASB case. It said it would contact her within 5 days. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident why it chose to open a new case.
21. The resident was older, had health problems, and had limited mobility. She was also receiving treatment for cancer. She said the noise, including talking, laughing, and coughing, caused her distress and disturbed her sleep. Our Spotlight Report on Noise says landlords should give extra support to vulnerable residents, as there is no one‑size‑fits‑all approach. The landlord continued to investigate but did not show it had considered if it needed to tailor its approach.
22. In early 2025, the landlord spoke with the neighbour, visited both homes, and set up mediation. These steps were reasonable and in line with its policy which says it would use a flexible approach so it can deal with different types of ASB reports. It also says most cases should be resolved through early action rather than legal steps, and it lists mediation as a suitable early option.
23. On 18 March 2025 in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would check the flooring under the neighbour’s washing machine. It would also get an anti‑vibration mat, collect diary sheets often, offer mediation at a time that suited the resident, and install a one‑week noise meter. These steps were reasonable. They showed the landlord took the concerns seriously and wanted to work with the resident to resolve the issues.
24. The landlord installed the noise meter on 4 April 2025 and held mediation on 16 April 2025. The landlord’s records also showed it provided and received regular diary sheets. It is not clear whether it updated the resident about installation of the anti-vibration mat. We have not made any orders on this as the resident told us she has accepted another property and might be moving soon.
25. The landlord took several actions, in line with its ASB policy, to try to address the ongoing noise issues reported by the resident. These steps demonstrated a commitment to resolving the matter. However, despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the high score identified in the risk assessment, the landlord did not show that it had taken these factors into account in its approach. While this may not have changed the eventual outcome, it missed an earlier opportunity and later opportunity to identify if support was needed. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident in line with our remedies guidance for failings that caused distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
27. In line with the Code and the landlord’s policy, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and 10 working days to issue a stage 1 response (up to 15 working days). For stage 2, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to respond (up to 25 working days).
28. The resident made her complaint on 27 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged it the next working day 28 January 2025, and sent its stage 1 response on 6 February 2025, 7 working days later. This was in line with the Code and its policy.
29. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 12 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 14 February 2025, 2 working days later, and issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2025, 22 working days later. As the landlord had up to 25 working days in total to issue a stage 2 response, the landlord’s response was in line with the Code and the policy.
30. The landlord knew about the resident’s history of noise reports. It would have helped the resident if the landlord had set out a clear timeframe for the complaint and recognised the history of the issue in its responses. This may have helped the resident understand that the landlord was fully aware of the circumstances for the reason for her complaint.

Learning

31. This case shows why landlords need a flexible and person‑centred approach when managing noise reports. Policies give structure, but the landlord’s need to look at each resident’s situation and offer extra support when needed. Landlords should respond to risks quickly and change approach if a resident’s vulnerability increases. This helps residents feel supported and makes the service more effective.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s records showed a clear history of noise reports from the resident. However, its complaint reply did not show that it looked at this history. Landlords should review relevant case records, usually from at least 12 months. This helps staff see patterns, note past actions and make informed decisions.

Communication

33. In this case, the landlord’s failure to update the resident about the reclassification of the risk assessment and to make contact within the 5‑day timeframe shows why clear, timely, and documented communication is essential to effective case management.
34. When risk assessments change, residents should be promptly informed of the reasons, what this means for the investigation, and any adjustments to the agreed action plan. Communication should also reflect the risk score and the resident’s circumstances under the Vulnerability Policy, ensuring the tone, frequency, and support offered are proportionate. Embedding these practices helps maintain trust, reduces confusion, and prevents avoidable escalation.