From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Camden Council (202317178)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317178

Camden Council

28 March 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 reports of noise disturbances from the flat above.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The flat above is owned by a leaseholder who sublets the property to tenants.
  2. On 5 December 2022 the resident reported noise from the flat above. He could hear floorboards creaking as the upstairs flat had laminate flooring. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 10 February 2023 and said it had asked the managing agent to check the flooring, arrange any repair works to minimise the creaking floorboards, and to ensure there was suitable floor covering in place. The neighbours were also taking reasonable measures to reduce household noise. It also said it had received antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports about the resident’s behaviour. On 23 May 2023, it confirmed the above property was fully carpeted. The landlord completed a home visit on 7 June 2023 to test the noise and inspect the flooring.
  3. The resident referred the issue to the Housing Ombudsman as the noise issues were ongoing and we asked the landlord on 18 November 2023 to respond to the complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. It said the leaseholder of the flat above had taken steps to reduce the noise transference. Due to the design of the building the resident would likely hear general household noise even if all reasonable measures to reduce noise transference were taken. It was in communication with the leaseholder to establish if it could consider any further measures to minimise noise transference. It asked the resident to keep a log of new noise incidents for 2 weeks so it could decide the next steps. It had received reports that the resident was abusive towards the neighbour and advised that ASB was a breach of his tenancy conditions. It provided information on rehousing options.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 October 2023 as he did not think the landlord had properly investigated. He said the issue was ongoing despite the leaseholder installing carpets. He disputed reporting general living noise, but rather just creaking floorboards. The landlord had not completed further investigations into the flooring, despite saying it would 5 months prior. The issue was impacting his general living, health, and finances. He asked the landlord to rehouse him in a fit for purpose property as he stated was agreed in a court case in 2022.
  6. The landlord reiterated its initial response at stage 2, which it sent to the resident on 20 November 2023. It asked the resident to continue to report any further noise incidents.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman as the landlord did not complete further investigation into the flooring as it had previously agreed. He said it offered him a property in January 2024, but it withdrew the offer and had not provided any further support to move. He said the noise impacts his sleep and his ability to keep employment. He wanted the landlord to move him or fix the flooring. He was unhappy with how the landlord handled the stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that the resident’s desired outcome is to be moved from the property. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, however, we are unable to order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties or details of any other prospective tenants or applicants that may have higher priority for rehousing. Nonetheless, the Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
  2. In his complaint, the resident said he moved into the property following a previous court case. He did not think the landlord had properly adhered to the outcome of the court case as he did not think the property was fit for purpose due to the noise. Paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The Ombudsman cannot issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning the landlord’s compliance with a court order, as this is an issue for the court due to being a legal matter. If the resident remains dissatisfied, it is recommended that he refers the issue back to the court, as it falls properly within their remit. As a result, we cannot investigate this element of the complaint, but we will consider whether the landlord appropriately handled the noise reports.
  3. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reports that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted his health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The resident’s reports of noise disturbances from the flat above

  1. The resident initially reported noise from the flat above on 5 December 2022. He said the noise was not deliberate or malicious, but he could hear noise from the floorboards as the flat above had laminate flooring. He said the issues were disrupting his sleep. The noise reported by the resident would not be considered as ASB as it describes general living noise. The landlord would therefore not rely on its ASB policy to assess how to act. It would be more appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the structure of the building was appropriate to limit noise transference and whether the flat above had suitable floors.
  2. The landlord told the neighbour on 7 February 2023 to ensure they had suitable floor covering in place with underlay to minimise noise transference. It does not typically allow wooden flooring in flats above the ground floor. The neighbour also agreed to take reasonable measures to reduce general household noise. As the property above was a leasehold flat, they are responsible for floor coverings, so this was reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  3. However, the landlord did not take action until 2 months after the resident’s initial report, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord informed the resident of the steps it had taken on 10 February 2023 and explained there was a delay as there was no dedicated housing officer for the resident’s block, which it was recruiting for. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised its failing and explained the steps it was taking to improve its service.
  4. Between the resident’s initial report and the landlord acting, the flat above reported that the resident was engaging in ASB, including threatening behaviour and banging. This demonstrates why it is important for landlords to promptly intervene in such issues to prevent escalation. Nonetheless, ultimately residents are responsible for their own behaviour and should not commit ASB in line with the tenancy agreement. It is important to note that the investigation is not investigating the resident’s reported behaviour, but rather how the landlord managed both parties’ reports.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 23 May 2023 that the flat above was now fully carpeted. The resident said this had not resolved the noise issues. On 30 May 2023 the landlord asked the resident to provide access to his flat to establish the level of noise. It visited both flats on 7 June 2023. It found the floorboards creaked, but not excessively. It noted the carpet in the leaseholder’s flat was thin and did not appear to have underlay and the flooring bowed in places including the hallway. The neighbour provided pictures of the floorboards before the carpet was fitted, which the landlord said were in poor condition. The landlord could have sought to confirm with the neighbour that there was underlay, given that it formed part of its request to address the reported noise.
  6. The landlord internally discussed on 20 June 2023 which party was responsible for any repairs to the floorboards. The building surveyor had reviewed the photos and found it “appears to be an acoustic batten system batten floor”, so the leaseholder was responsible for any repairs or replacement. The landlord shared its findings with the leaseholder and the resident on 23 June 2023. Although the landlord determined it was not responsible for the works, it should have proactively pursued the matter with the leaseholder until the issue was addressed.
  7. The resident chased the further investigation into the flooring on 19 July 2023. The leaseholder did not accept responsibility for the repairs and thought the landlord was responsible. The landlord further clarified its position regarding repair responsibilities to the leaseholder on 17 August 2023, which was reasonable.
  8. At stage 1 on 27 October 2023, the landlord said it was in communication with the leaseholder to establish whether any further measures could be taken. It also noted in June 2023 it decided to explore further investigation of the flooring. However, there is no evidence that it further discussed the matter with the leaseholder or took any further action to repair the flooring. The landlord also did not provide any updates or further information on this in its stage 2 response. The Service’s complaint handling code states that “Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. The landlord’s handling of this issue was therefore unreasonable.
  9. The landlord said that due to the building design and proximity of the flat, the resident was likely to hear general household noise. This is true and it was reasonable that it sought to manage the resident’s expectations that it was unlikely to be able to completely eradicate the noise. However, it should still take all reasonable and proportionate steps to reduce the noise, and it has failed to do so.
  10. The resident requested the landlord to move him due to the noise. It appears the landlord discussed mutual exchange as a potential option, which he told the landlord on 19 July 2023 was unsuccessful. The landlord also provided information on move options in its complaint responses. The landlord internally noted on 10 October 2023 that it was advocating for a direct offer to resolve the issues for the resident. Following the completion of the complaint process, it appears the landlord attempted to support the resident in moving, which would have resolved the substantive complaint issue. However, it withdrew an offer as it deemed the property was unsuitable. The resident is still in the property, but this would not be considered a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord has taken some appropriate steps to address the resident’s reports of noise transference. It may not always be possible for the landlord to completely eradicate the noise, but it was appropriate that it took steps to reduce it. It liaised with his neighbour, and they took steps to reduce noise and installed floor coverings. However, it failed to continue to liaise with the leaseholder or provide any further updates as agreed at stage 1. This is particularly of concern as it identified potential repair issues which remain unaddressed. If the landlord determined no further action could be taken, it should have confirmed this to the resident to manage his expectations. An order has been made below for the landlord to pursue the floorboard repairs with the leaseholder and update the resident.
  12. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £200 compensation is warranted as the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to provide the resident with an update on whether it could take any further action with the leaseholder to address the potential repair issues to the flooring. It is clear the noise issues have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. While the landlord may not be able to completely eradicate the noise, it has not followed through with its promised actions which caused the resident to feel let down. The resident also invested time and was inconvenienced by his pursuit of the repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident said there were delays in the landlord recognising his complaint. The Service’s complaint handling code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”.
  2. In this case, the resident had contacted the landlord several times about the noise issues between December 2022 and July 2023. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 August 2023 and we asked the landlord on 18 October 2023 to respond to the complaint. The resident told us he was dissatisfied that the landlord did not recognise the complaint until October 2023 as he raised a complaint 10 months prior. The resident submitted a noise complaint form on 5 December 2022. However, this was a first report of the noise, rather than a complaint with the landlord’s handling of the matter. As such, this would be considered a service request rather than a formal complaint.
  3. As the issue was ongoing for several months with no full resolution, it may have been helpful for the landlord to have signposted the resident to the complaint process, so he was aware of the available options. However, it was not a failure that it did not as such information is available on its website.
  4. The complaint handling code states that landlords “must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. In this case, the landlord failed to address several elements of the resident’s complaint escalation including the resident’s dispute about the type of noise he reported, his concerns with the effectiveness of the property inspection, and his report that the landlord had failed to complete further investigations into the flooring. He said the landlord had not dealt with the complaint and instead focused on counter-allegations made by his neighbour.
  5. While it was important to note the counter-allegations as context to the resident’s complaint, it was unreasonable that the landlord focused more on the resident’s behaviour than the issues he was reporting. The resident subsequently told us that he did not think the landlord was willing to help, which was understandable given the landlord failed to address numerous aspects of the complaint. As noted above, the landlord failed to fulfil the agreed actions at stage 1. The landlord’s failure to properly investigate and respond to the resident’s outstanding concerns at stage 2 meant there was a missed opportunity to resolve the substantive complaint issue at an earlier date. Therefore, in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £100 as its failure delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbances from the flat above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £200 for its failing to update the resident on whether it could take any further action with the leaseholder to address the potential repair issues to the flooring.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must confirm in writing the steps it will take to ensure the leaseholder completes the required repairs to the floorboards and installs carpet underlay if they have not done so already. It should set out a clear action plan including a timeframe for its actions. It should ensure it considers how it will escalate the matter if the leaseholder refuses to complete the works. It should commit to providing fortnightly updates to the resident until the matter is resolved. It should provide a copy of the action plan and correspondence with the resident to the Service as evidence of compliance.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of noise disturbance reports from leaseholder properties.