London Borough of Islington (202450875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450875

London Borough of Islington

29 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She started living in the property, a 1-bedroom flat, in January 2023. She has shared with the landlord that she had very significant mental health issues including post-traumatic related symptoms. She has provided a letter of support from medical professionals which states her mental health may be disproportionately affected by noise.
Since moving in, for more than 2 years, the resident has reported being affected by noises from different sources at different times. She stated her mental health has been affected by these noises to the point of her experiencing crises. These sources included:
1. A humming/buzzing noise from the electric main intake cupboard inside her bedroom.
2. A hammering noise from the pipes.
3. Noises from her neighbours in the flat upstairs, including sounds from the TV, a child ‘screaming’ while playing games and bouncing a ball in the communal areas, toilets being flushed, and a baby crying.
The resident first reported the humming/buzzing noise from the electric main intake cupboard on 6 February 2023. The landlord conducted repairs a week after she reported the issue. Following this the resident made no more reports until 12 January 2024 when she said again she could hear loud noises from the cupboard at night. The landlord’s engineer attended within a week but could not identify a noise issue. There were no more reports after this.
On 7 March 2023 the resident first reported the hammering noise from the pipes at her flat. The landlord attended the same day to test the valves and found all pipes were working correctly inside her flat. It then carried out an investigation of the connected neighbouring flats from March to April 2023 but was not able to find anything wrong.
The resident made intermittent reports in mid-July 2023 and in 2024 about recurring noises in the plumbing. The landlord replaced a ball valve in mid-July 2024. In February 2025 she made a similar report, however when the landlord arranged an appointment for inspection she requested cancellation. Records do not show further reports of similar issues after February 2025.
Around March 2023 the resident began to report her upstairs neighbours had their TV on too loud and their child was bouncing a ball in the communal area upstairs. According to the landlord it sent a warning letter to the neighbour in mid-May 2023 asking them to reduce noise. It did not record this as an anti-social behaviour (ASB) issue as the noises complained of were household noises from day-to-day living.
In August 2023 the landlord inspected the flooring in the neighbour’s flat and found the flooring to be adequate as there was carpeting.
The resident continued to make intermittent reports of the same type of noises produced by her neighbours throughout 2024 and 2024, including TV noises, a child playing and a baby crying. She informed the landlord she experienced mental health crises and felt the neighbours were deliberately aggravating her. Records showed the landlord had on multiple occasions referred her to mental health crisis support and checked in with the local mental health team, however the resident engaged only intermittently.
The landlord sent further warning letters to the neighbours in June 2024 and January 2025 asking them to reduce the sound volume from their TV after repeated reports from the resident. Tenancy officers carried out home visits in January 2024 and February 2025. Records do not show what discussion took place between the tenancy officers and the neighbours on these visits, if any.
In December 2024 the resident reported the neighbours’ new baby was crying which was disrupting her sleep. The landlord explained to her this was not something over which they could take action as this did not amount to ASB nor was it within the parents’ control.
On multiple occasions the landlord asked the resident to install a Noise App on her phone in order to record evidence of noise nuisance. However, according to the landlord, she repeatedly declined to do this. The resident’s account is that she had no internet access on her mobile phone and could not install the app, She said the landlord was aware of this. She stated she requested the landlord install professional noise recording equipment inside her home several times.
The landlord also sent the resident diary sheets for recording noise occurrences which the resident said she sent back once. She stated she also sent a recording she made herself, but the landlord did not take further action.
The resident made a formal complaint on 30 January 2025. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2025 summarised as follows:
1. Its officers had visited both the resident and her neighbours’ properties and only heard ordinary household noises. It had conducted noise tests, checked the floorboards and interviewed other neighbours, none of whom reported experiencing similar noise levels.
2. It again encouraged the resident to download the Noise App and enclosed information on mental health support and ASB reporting procedure.
3. It would arrange further checks on the pipes and electric intake cupboard.
4. It provided an update on the resident’s re-housing application status, reassuring her she was on the list with high points.
5. It offered £25 for a delay in acknowledging her complaint.
The resident asked for an escalation on the same day. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2025 summarised as follows:
1. It reiterated it had found no evidence of excessive noise and the carpeting/flooring in the neighbour’s property were in place.
2. It had conducted repairs in full to the pipes and referred the electric cupboard for further repairs.
3. It had offered the Noise App but the resident declined this. It would only install noise monitoring equipment when it suspected there was statutory noise nuisance and this was not the case.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and questioned why the landlord did not install noise monitoring equipment. She felt the landlord had not done enough to stop the neighbours from making excessive noise and had not sufficiently considered the impact on her as a vulnerable person. The neighbours had moved out of their flat as of August 2025 and she currently did not experience disruptive noises from that source.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider events starting from February 2023 (at the time when the resident first started reporting noises from the electric intake cupboard) up to March 2025 (when the landlord issued its stage 2 response). Although the resident’s complaint was formally made only in January 2025, more than 12 months after the initial reports of noise, the landlord has acknowledged a delay in acknowledging the resident’s communication as a formal complaint at stage 1. The events starting from February 2023 were about the same recurring issues as the ones that the landlord considered in its internal complaints process and so we will consider these facts as a whole.
The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of her reports of noises caused her to experience mental health crises. While we acknowledge her experience of poor mental health, as an organisation we do not have the jurisdiction or ability to determine the cause of her mental health symptoms. We are only able to consider if the landlord’s actions or omissions were likely to have caused general distress and inconvenience. If the resident wishes to prove that the landlord’s actions had caused her to experience specific mental health illnesses or impacted on her health and wellbeing, it would be more appropriate for her to seek a personal injury claim through the courts.

Relevant policies and procedures

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints (October 2022) states landlords should consider carefully whether noise complaints should be dealt with through the lens of ASB or more appropriately through good neighbourhood management if the sources of noise are household activities.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise

With regards to the noise from the pipes and from the electric intake cupboard, we can see the landlord responded appropriately by raising inspections and repairs within a week of each report the resident made. It had also investigated the matter of the ‘hammering’ from the pipes thoroughly by visiting all the flats connected to the pipe network where the sound might have come from. We consider the landlord responded in a timely and effective manner to deal with potential noise from these sources.
With regards to the alleged noise from the neighbours, although the resident stated on multiple occasions that she felt the neighbours were acting deliberately to aggravate her, there was no evidence to suggest the noises produced (TV sounds, toilet flushing, children crying or playing) were anything other than ordinary household noises. As stated within our Spotlight Report, it would be good practice for the landlord to treat this kind of noise through good neighbourhood management, rather than classify it as ASB.
From the records, on most occasions the landlord appropriately addressed this through good neighbourhood management rather than treat the case as ASB. It had also on some occasions explained to the resident that some transference of noises from day-to-day household activities was to be expected and did not amount to ASB. There was one instance where the landlord provided the resident with guidance on how to report an ASB matter in its complaint response, however it was reasonable to provide this information to the resident as she had claimed the noise amounted to ASB. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to deal with this matter through its ASB procedure as it would have given rise to unrealistic expectations and potentially been unhelpful in de-escalating any personal conflict between neighbours.
The collection of objective evidence is key to investigating and resolving noise disputes as pointed out in our Spotlight Report on this topic. However, it is also noted that a common barrier to effectiveness that emerged in the call for evidence, for both the Noise App and noise monitoring equipment, was the ability of a resident to use it.
The landlord had asked the resident to install the Noise App on her phone so she could make recordings and upload them directly to a sharing platform for the landlord to review. This in itself was an appropriate step to take as it would allow the landlord to gather objective evidence of the noise levels and take action accordingly. There is no dispute that the resident had not accepted this.
The landlord’s account is that the resident simply declined to install the app. Her account is that she was not able to use an app as she had no internet connection on her phone and she told the landlord this. Email communication and phone call records do not show she explained this to the landlord at the time. While we appreciate this might have been not captured in the records, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord was aware and therefore we cannot find a failing in this aspect. If the landlord had been aware, the appropriate action would have been to find an alternative way to gather evidence.
The landlord declined to install noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s home, saying that it would not typically do this in the absence of any indication of statutory noise nuisance. We consider this was a reasonable explanation as the landlord, a local authority, must consider how to use its resources in a proportionate and effective manner. It was within its rights to decide not to install a noise monitoring machine under these circumstances.
Positively, the landlord investigated whether the sound transference was the core of the issue. It conducted inspections of the flooring and carpeting in the upstairs flat of the neighbours to confirm it had adequate soundproofing. It carried out home visits to both properties. In response to the resident’s requests, it also sent the neighbours multiple warning letters asking them to turn down the TV volume, although there was no objective evidence of excessive noise. It interviewed other neighbours to verify whether they heard excessive noises to which the response was negative. We consider these were appropriate and reasonable steps to take to try to mitigate the issue of the neighbours’ household noises affecting the resident.
Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord had conducted the necessary repairs, visited the neighbours, investigated the flooring for soundproofing and sent the warning letters, which we consider sufficient steps to take in view of the scale and nature of the noise reported. We have made a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
We recognise that the resident may have more sensitivity to noise due to her vulnerabilities. As further mitigation, the landlord could potentially have explored reasonable adjustments such as suggesting noise cancellation headphones or checking the insulation in her ceiling. However, the landlord has taken what we consider reasonable action in its response to the noise reports and is not under obligation to go further.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage 2 included a statement that ‘Noise App recordings did not indicate a statutory nuisance’. We believe this was in error, as the resident was not in a position to provide Noise App recordings. This was confusing for the resident and caused her some distress. Although we have not found a failing for this issue as it was not part of the original and formal complaint, we have made a recommendation below for the landlord to apologise and clarify this for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has acknowledged a delay in formally accepting the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Records showed that the resident expressed unhappiness about the noise she experienced and later on she expressed dissatisfaction at the matter remaining unresolved, however it was only when the landlord actively asked her if she wished to make a complaint that she confirmed she would like to proceed to the formal complaint procedure.
The landlord has offered £25 to recognise any distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced due to a delay in progressing her complaint. We consider this was reasonable and sufficient given that the resident had not clearly expressed a desire to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the noise issue until asked to confirm, and the delay was of relatively short duration.
On the condition that the landlord pays this amount to the resident (if it has not been paid), we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident with respect to its delays in complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the issue about its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to clarify its statement about ‘the Noise App not indicating a statutory noise nuisance’ at stage 2 of the complaint process and apologise for any confusion caused.
The landlord should pay £25 to the resident if it has not done so in recognition of not progressing her complaint earlier.
The landlord should discuss other potential solutions with the resident in view of her not being able to use the Noise App, such as advising her to try noise cancellation headphones.