Housing Solutions (202344100)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344100

Housing Solutions

30 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for sound proofing in her home.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 30 August 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities which are known to the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022 to complain about noise from her neighbours. The landlord later contacted the resident on 30 January 2023 advising that the case had been passed to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) team to monitor.
  3. The resident attempted to raise a stage 1 complaint on 10 March 2024. However, this was sent to the landlord’s Public Relations (PR) team and not actioned. A further email was sent by the resident on 6 June 2024 and a formal complaint was raised by the landlord. With her correspondence, the resident said she felt there was a lack of sound proofing at the property and this was having a great impact on her.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2024 in which it advised that its ASB policy had been followed and that while it empathised with the impact on the resident, the complaint was not upheld. It advised that it would arrange for specialist sound recording equipment to be installed in the property for a short period and for a surveyor to attend and carry out an in person valuation. It is unclear what this valuation included.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 25 September 2024. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters and set out the effect the levels of noise in her property were having on her wellbeing. She advised that she felt noise proofing was not being explored due to the costs involved.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 28 October 2024. It advised the complaint had not been upheld as both the ASB policy and the Neighbourhood Management policy had been adhered to.  The complaint was closed on a commitment to:
    1. Inform the resident if the neighbouring property became empty and next steps regarding new neighbours.
    2. Arrange for an independent noise assessment to be carried out and provide non-structural recommendations to reduce noise transmission.
    3. Offer the installation of underlay and carpet to help with noise transference.
    4. Consider a move for the resident to a more suitable home with adequate sound proofing.
    5. Progress a referral to the local authority environmental health team to assess noise levels in the property.
  7. The landlord notified the resident on 9 December 2024 that all above actions were complete and it had closed the ASB case.
  8. The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with how the complaint had been handled by the landlord. In particular, she was unhappy that no long term resolution had been provided for the noise transference affecting the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound proofing in her home

  1. The resident made contact with the landlord in November 2022 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour below. An ASB case was subsequently raised by the landlord. We are satisfied that the landlord was dealing with the ASB case in line with its procedure. Alongside the ASB case, the resident was regularly raising the issue of noise transference in her property.
  2. Sound proofing or noise dampening works are not referenced in the landlord’s ASB policy, Neighbourhood Management policy or Repairs and Maintenance policy. This is not unreasonable as it is a complex subject which would not benefit from a blanket policy. There is also no obligation on the landlord to carry out such works under a tenancy agreement. Its obligation is to repair and maintain. Any installation of sound proofing or noise dampening works would be undertaken at a landlord’s discretion. We have therefore considered how the landlord responded to the concerns raised by the resident and whether it acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  3. Our spotlight report on noise nuisance emphasises the importance of the landlord clearly communicating how noise complaints will be handled early in the process and managing resident’s expectations. It is noted that within its first contact with the resident in January 2023 regarding the ASB case, the landlord informed the resident that it did not carry out soundproofing in properties. It was good practice that the landlord was transparent about this from the beginning, as a result there was no ambiguity as to whether this was something the landlord would eventually agree to.
  4. Between June 2023 and August 2023, the resident raised further concerns regarding the noise from her neighbour’s property. The resident felt that there was insufficient sound proofing in her home. As part of the ongoing ASB case, the landlord visited the neighbour on 2 August 2023. Following this visit, it advised the resident that it would be recommending that it explore the possibility of installing acoustic boards at the property. This was ultimately refused as the landlord felt it would not work owing to structural issues with the installation. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider this. While it is noted that this would have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord was entitled to consider the feasibility of this before agreeing to it.
  5. Around the same time, internal landlord communication shows that there were concerns that the expectations of the resident would be higher than what could be achieved. Ultimately the landlord said that living in a flat required a state of mind in which you heard but ignored your neighbour going to the toilet, watching TV etc. It is unclear when this was communicated to the resident. However, the resident made reference to the acoustic boards put forward in her first stage 1 complaint, so we are confident that communication did take place. The landlord had reasonably reviewed the request and provided a response to the resident, so they had clarity on the issue which was appropriate.
  6. As the landlord did not respond the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint, she complained again on 6 June 2024. She said she was unhappy that her previous complaint had not been responded to and that there were still issues with noise transference. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident asked for sound proofing to be explored.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response advised that the complaint was not upheld as the ASB policy had been followed. The complaint was closed on a commitment to install specialist sound monitoring equipment in the property and for a surveyor to attend and carry out a valuation of the issue in person. It is unclear what this valuation entailed. Given that the complaint was specifically raised around a request for sound proofing at the property, this was not an adequate response. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns meant that not only did her specific question go unanswered but her substantive complaint about the ongoing noise transference remained unresolved. This would have exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  8. On 5 July 2024, a surveyor visited the resident at her home in line with the commitment made in the stage 1 complaint response. During the visit, noise transference and noise proofing possibilities were discussed such as acoustic panels being fitted. It was also noted at the visit that the resident had laid laminate flooring in her property. This is not permitted under the tenancy agreement. The landlord decided not to take any action against the resident. However, it advised it could explore acoustic panels under the flooring as a possible solution to the noise transference. The resident refused this and said she felt these could be fitted to the below property’s ceiling. She said she had spent a large amount of money on the flooring and did not want it to be tampered with. While the resident’s comments are noted, the landlord was proactively trying to find solutions to the noise transference issue the resident had reported. It would have therefore been reasonable for the resident to try to cooperate and work together with the landlord to find a solution.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 25 September 2024. She remained unhappy with the lack of soundproofing at the property and that no action was being taken to reduce the noise transference. She felt that the landlord was not progressing with soundproofing due to the costs involved.
  10. The stage 2 response advised that the complaint was not upheld as the landlord had adhered to its ASB and Neighbourhood Management policy. The landlord reiterated its stance in regards to the sound proofing at the property. It advised the resident that the property was built in the 1970’s and that sound reduction measures were not introduced in home building until 2003. As such it accepted there may be noise transference but said that the flooring laid by the resident may be contributing to this as underlay and carpet are known to reduce sound transference between properties. It advised that there were interventions it could do to help reduce the noise levels but explained that this would not eliminate the noise completely.
  11. It then took the time to outline what measures it would be willing to take to support the resident in reducing noise transference. This included arranging for an independent noise assessment to be carried out in the property with a view to providing non-structural recommendations to reduce noise transmission. It also said it would offer the installation of underlay and carpet to help with noise transference in the living room and give consideration to a management move to a potentially more suitable home with more adequate sound proofing. It was positive that the landlord was providing clarity on this issue and went some way to putting its previous failings in the stage 1 complaint response right.
  12. The sensitivities of this case are not lost on this Service, given the longstanding nature of the noise reports and the detriment the resident said it was causing her. In both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint the resident made specific reference to the complaint being about the lack of sound proofing and resulting noise transference in her property. The landlord failed to appropriately grasp the distinction of the ASB case it had open at that time and the complaint which specifically asked about sound proofing. Its failure to distinguish between these 2 issues meant that it treated the complaint as a review of its actions regarding the ASB case.
  13. The landlord had been transparent in explaining that sound proofing wouldn’t be undertaken at the property in its first contact regarding the noise nuisance. It did not take a rigid approach to this and visited the property to see what could be done which was fair and reasonable. It explored the possibility of acoustic boarding and also agreed to give consideration to a management move. As part of its complaint commitments, it agreed to continue to investigate the residents reports by installing sound monitoring equipment, and for an independent noise assessment to be carried out. The landlord acted appropriately and was reasonably doing all it could to reach a suitable outcome to the complaint. As a result, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and be responded to within 20 working days. This is compliant with the Code.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2024 to raise a formal complaint regarding the noise transference issues at her property. The landlord did not respond to the complaint until a second attempt to raise the complaint was made on 6 June 2024.  Following contact from this Service in September 2024, the landlord explained to us that the original email had been sent to its PR team and had been automatically sent to the spam folder so was “never formally received”.
  3. The landlord made contact with the resident on 6 June 2024 upon receipt of the second attempt to raise a complaint. It explained the error with the first stage 1 complaint and apologised to the resident. This was good communication and showed the landlord was attempting to put right the failure to address the first complaint.
  4. While we accept that contact had been made with the resident and the landlord had apologised for the failing, it was not referenced in either of the complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge the time and trouble taken by the resident in having to re raise the complaint and to provide appropriate redress for its failings. As a result it did not follow our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right which was poor complaint handling.
  5. In both the resident’s initial complaint and escalation request she made specific reference to the complaint being about the lack of sound proofing and resulting noise transference in her property. As mentioned previously in the report, the landlord failed to identify this as a separate issue from the ASB case that was ongoing at that time. This was a failing. It is noted though that while the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was a review of the ASB case, it did provide clarity on the sound proofing and further explanation as to why it had made the decision it had.
  6. The landlord failed to identify any complaint handling issues at either stage of its complaints process. This was a missed opportunity to learn from its mistakes to improve services in the future, which is a central theme of the Code.  The delay in acknowledging and responding to the original stage 1 complaint was never formally investigated and the additional time and trouble to the resident not appropriately acknowledged. This in addition to the stage 1 complaint handling failure to specifically address the resident’s noise proofing concerns amounted to service failure. There was a minor failure by the landlord, with no lasting impact, in not acknowledging the delayed stage 1 complaint or providing appropriate redress for this. We have made an order to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the additional time and trouble to the resident and a further £50 for the failure to appropriately respond to the stage 1 complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound proofing in her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the receipt of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of compliance of the orders as follows:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.