London Borough of Croydon (202436719)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202436719 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Croydon |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
21 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident experienced noise nuisance from the neighbour living above her in a property with laminate flooring. Her neighbour is a leaseholder. The landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance was the subject of her complaints.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s noise nuisance reports
- The landlord did not respond to the resident’s noise nuisance reports in line with its Anti- Social Behaviour (ASB) policy. It did not apply its home improvement guide correctly, gave incorrect advice, and delayed installing sound recording equipment. However, it recognised its failings and offered the resident proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused her.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not apply its complaint policy correctly. It recognised its complaint handling failings and offered the resident compensation. However, it was not proportionate to the time and trouble it caused the resident.
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 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble its complaint handling caused her. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. |
No later than 18 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 16 and 28 March 2022 |
The resident complained twice to the landlord about its handling of her noise nuisance reports. In both complaints she said it had not responded to her reports. She also described the impact on her mental health and said its lack of support was distressing. In her second complaint, she said her upstairs neighbour slammed windows and banged on the floors which sounded like they did not have any underlay. |
|
20 April 2022 |
The landlord replied to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint. It apologised for its delayed response to her noise nuisance reports, and its poor communication. It said banging windows, floors, and doors was household noise but if this caused a nuisance it could try to resolve this. It asked her to consider mediation with her neighbour and said it would refer her to this. It said it could not tell her neighbour to install flooring or take enforcement action on flooring in private properties. It said it requested her neighbour’s phone number but it should have updated the resident. It said it sent a letter to the neighbour on 18 February 2022 and a further letter asking them to make contact. It also said it would contact the resident to discuss the noise issues. The landlord upheld the complaint. |
|
25 May 2022 |
The landlord replied to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. It apologised for its delayed response and poor communication. It acknowledged this caused distress. It summarised its handling of her noise nuisance reports. It said it sent a further letter to the neighbour and it would install noise monitoring equipment for the resident. It said as the neighbour was a leaseholder enforcement action may take longer and there were no restrictions on leaseholders having laminate flooring unless it caused problems. It said it was engaging positively with the neighbour and it was in regular contact with the resident. It said it hoped to resolve the noise issues. It did not say if it upheld the complaint. |
|
28 August 2023 |
The resident emailed her stage 2 complaint to the landlord. She said she suffered noise nuisance for almost 2 years due to her neighbour’s flooring. She said she asked it to arrange removal of the flooring in May 2023, but it said it could not use legal powers for noise caused by normal day to day activity. She did not think the noise nuisance was normal day to day activity and if it read the correspondence she sent for 18 months it would understand the issues better. She referred the landlord to its home improvement guide and said to put matters right it should make her neighbour remove their flooring. |
|
11 October 2023 |
The landlord said the resident’s complaint escalation request related to a stage 1 response it sent over 18 months ago so it would not log it at stage 2. It said mediation had taken place since then so it asked the tenancy team to respond to her. |
|
18 October 2023 |
The landlord responded directly to the resident after receiving a Mayoral enquiry on her behalf on 11 August 2023. It said it visited the neighbour about her noise nuisance complaints but they denied the allegations. It said the neighbour changed the bedroom flooring and planned to do so throughout the property. It said as the neighbour was a leaseholder they did not have to contact the landlord about this as they were responsible for the interior of their property. It said it sent diary sheets to the resident, enquired about internal repairs, and it sent a block letter asking all residents not to use machines between 10pm and 8am. It said it could not rehouse the resident due to the noise nuisance but it had sent her information about her housing options. It summarised the outcomes of a mediation session between her and her neighbour. It said it would install sound monitors in one of the neighbours’ properties in November 2023 and discuss mediation with the resident. |
|
30 June 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was not happy with the landlord’s18 October 2023 response. She said the neighbour’s soundproofing materials had not resolved the noise issues. She said she investigated soundproofing her ceiling but this was expensive and not something she should have to do. She referred the landlord to its home improvement guide and said the neighbour had not replaced all the flooring with carpets or told her when they started this as agreed at a mediation session. She said the landlord should make her neighbour remove the flooring and replace it with carpet. |
|
22 July 2024 |
The landlord emailed the resident to confirm it chased the relevant team for an urgent response to her stage 2 complaint. |
|
7 October 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It apologised for its misunderstanding about escalating her complaint. |
|
16 December 2024 |
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It apologised for its poor response to her noise nuisance concerns and its complaint handling delays. It acknowledged it had not followed its procedures by failing to escalate her earlier complaints to stage 2. It summarised its handling of her noise nuisance reports and complaints and acknowledged this caused her stress and anxiety. It confirmed leaseholders needed permission to lay laminate flooring in line with its leasehold home improvement guide. It said if flooring caused a nuisance it would address this by referring to their lease. It said it had not given permission for laminate flooring so it wrote to the neighbour and gave them until 18 December 2024 to confirm they would replace the flooring. It apologised for the inaccurate information it provided in both its stage 1 responses which it identified as a learning point. It upheld the complaint and it offered the resident £500 for distress and inconvenience, £150 for time and trouble contacting the landlord to resolve the issue, and £150 for its poor complaint handling, totalling £800. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. To put matters right she said the landlord should increase its compensation offer. |
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 resident’s noise nuisance reports |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we did not investigate
- The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we did investigate
- The landlord responded to multiple complaints from the resident between March 2022 and December 2024. Its final complaint response of December 2024 referred to its handling of the resident’s January 2022 reports of noise nuisance. Therefore, we have investigated its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports since January 2022.
- The landlord told us it investigated the resident’s reports as tenancy issue. However, it also used tools referred to in its ASB policy when addressing the issues. This policy refers to noise nuisance as ASB. It does not have a separate policy or procedure for handling noise nuisance. Where relevant, we have assessed its handling of the noise nuisance and the associated neighbour dispute with reference to its ASB policy.
- The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s January 2022 reports until February 2022. There is no set time for its response but it took a month before it wrote to the resident’s neighbour about this. It has not explained this delay. The resident reported further noise issues which caused her more distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not follow up on its letter to the neighbour or update the resident before she made 2 stage 1 complaints in March 2022.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident there were no restrictions on the flooring leaseholder’s may have unless it becomes a problem. This was incorrect. The landlord’s leasehold home improvement guide says it will not give permission for laminate flooring above ground floor level due to noise transfer. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble because she continued to report noise issues to the landlord. By giving incorrect information and not investigating her reports, it missed an opportunity to investigate the source of noise nuisance.
- The resident chased the landlord for updates about its discussions with her neighbour in April 2022. It took until May 2022 to get the neighbour’s telephone number from another team so it could speak to them.
- The landlord contacted the neighbour in May and October 2022 and worked with them to install rugs in their property. It recorded the lifestyle changes the neighbour made to reduce the noise nuisance. However, it did not regularly update the resident, or reassure her it was investigating the noise nuisance, unless she asked.
- The landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s noise allegations is confidential. However, its communication with the neighbours was poor and it failed to resolve the noise issues. Its ASB policy says it will contact residents regularly to update them on any progress but it failed to do so. The noise issues escalated into a neighbour dispute between the resident and her neighbour which involved the police.
- Between January 2022 and October 2024, the landlord gave verbal warnings, sent warning letters, and offered mediation which were tools in its ASB policy. It also provided diary sheets and offered to install noise monitoring equipment. It missed the opportunity to consider using acceptable behaviour contracts as another method for addressing the noise issues. Given the landlord used the tools in its ASB policy it may have been good practice for it to handle the noise nuisance and neighbour dispute as an ASB case.
- The landlord offered to install noise monitoring equipment in the property in April 2022, but it did not do so until late 2024. This unreasonably delayed the landlord gathering evidence of the noise nuisance. It did not keep the resident updated about the delay. It offered the resident mediation in April 2022, but it did not arrange this until May 2023. The reason for this delay is not clear. This was a further missed opportunity to manage the ongoing dispute.
- The resident referred the landlord to its home improvement guide’s flooring advice in August 2023 and in her June 2024 stage 2 complaint escalation request. However, it did not investigate this until October 2024 which was a further failing. In the meantime, the resident requested rehousing due to the distress the noise nuisance caused her. The landlord says it replied to her request in its Mayoral enquiry response, but it did not send us a copy.
- The landlord investigated the resident’s reference to its home improvement guide in October 2024. It then told the neighbour to change their flooring on 19 November 2024. The neighbour did so in January 2025, 2 years after the resident first raised the noise nuisance concerns.
- The landlord addressed its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance complaints in its final response. It apologised for its poor communication, delayed response to the noise issues, and incorrect interpretation of its home improvement guide. It said it was working with the resident’s neighbour to remove and replace their flooring and it provided a timeline for this. Identifying its failings and explaining the actions it had taken to address the noise nuisance was positive, to manage the resident’s expectations.
- It considered the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its handling of the noise issues caused the resident and it offered her £650 as compensation for its failings. It was fair of the landlord to offer compensation for its poor handling of her reports to put matters right. It also said it had taken learning from the inaccurate information it provided in its complaint response.
- The landlord’s compensation offer was in line our remedies guidance where we have found maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident for an unreasonable time. The landlord’s offers of redress were in line with our dispute resolution principles, to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. As such we found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s noise reports.
- The resident reported ongoing noise nuisance issues since the landlord’s sent its final complaint response. We have recommended it contacts the resident about this and to consider if it should open a new case and respond in line with its ASB policy.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It also says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord registered 2 stage 1 complaints about the same matters within 2 weeks. It did not acknowledge the complaints. It responded to them separately on 20 April 2022 and 25 May 2025, outside its complaint policy timeframes. As it had not issued a response when it received the second complaint it should have combined the complaints in line with the Code.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 28 August 2023, 15 months later. The landlord did not respond until she chased this again on 11 October 2023. It said her escalation request was too late which was in line with its complaint policy. It should have told her sooner. It sent her enquiry to the tenancy team instead of raising a new stage 1 complaint.
- The landlord responded to an August 2023 Mayoral enquiry about the resident’s concerns on 18 October 2023. It did not respond within its complaint policy timeframe.
- The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in June 2024, 8 months after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not respond until she chased this in July 2024. It said it would arrange an urgent response but it did not do so. This caused her further time and trouble chasing it in October 2024. It then acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, 3 months after she made it.
- The landlord said it did not have a copy of its stage 1 response and it relied on the information in the resident’s stage 2 escalation request when it responded. Its complaint policy says the Mayor can make a complaint on a resident’s behalf. In line with this, it should have recorded its response as a stage 1 response.
- The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint until 6 months after she escalated her complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
- The landlord recognised its poor complaint handling in its final complaint response. It offered the resident £150 compensation. This award was in line with its complaint remedies options for a significant failing. However, it did not offer compensation for its multiple complaint handling failings in its previous responses. Overall, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the time and trouble it caused to the resident.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an extra £100 compensation, totalling £250. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for maladministration which caused time and trouble to the resident.
Learning
- The landlord should have updated the resident about the delays installing the sound recording equipment when handling the noise nuisance and in its final complaint response.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord did not keep accurate records of its communication with the resident about her noise nuisance reports. It did not provide copies of an earlier complaint response, file notes of home visits, and internal emails about its use of sound recording equipment. It did not provide evidence of its update to the resident about her rehousing options, or copies of block letters it sent.
Communication
- The landlord could have improved its communication. It often did not return the resident’s telephone calls and emails. It provided vague and inaccurate information and did not share important information when it should have.