London Borough of Lambeth (202442696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442696

London Borough of Lambeth

27 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise and request for sound proofing.
2. Concerns regarding air quality.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in July 2015. The property is a 1–bedroom flat. The property above is occupied by a leaseholder, who for the purpose of this report will be referred to as “the neighbour”. The resident said he has several health issues and vulnerabilities including autism.
In June and July 2023, the resident reported noise issues to the landlord which he felt were due to poor sound insulation between his property and the flat above. He requested sound proofing measures and noise monitoring equipment, emphasising the impact the issues had on his health and well-being. He said it was “extremely difficult to sleep” and the situation was causing him “immense distress”.
On 9 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident following receipt of his “webform”, apologising that the “public protection team would not be involved in this particular issue” as the property was managed by its tenancy enforcement team.
The resident contacted his local councillor on 3 September 2023, again outlining the noise issues and the impact on him. The councillor responded the next day, saying they would contact the landlord on his behalf. Diary sheets dated 22 to 27 September 2023 were provided to the landlord.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord completed an action plan, requesting the resident keep a diary of events and use a noise app. The landlord said it would review the case 2 weeks later. In November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that the noise app was “unreliable” and again requested noise monitoring equipment. The landlord and resident continued to liaise regarding the noise between December 2023 and January 2024. On 12 May 2024, the resident raised concerns regarding the indoor air quality within the property and requested assistance on “formally reporting” the issue. He also submitted air quality readings he had taken himself.
On 7 September 2024, the resident raised a complaint regarding “unresolved noise disturbance and air quality issues”. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 8 October 2024. It said that:
1. Noise monitoring equipment was installed in the property on 24 September 2024 and would be collected once arranged with the resident.
2. The recordings would be reviewed and the findings provided to the resident.
3. If necessary, a warning letter would be issued to the neighbour or an acceptable behaviour agreement drawn up.
4. Sound proofing could be requested via its responsive repairs team for their consideration.
5. It would arrange for a surveyor to visit the property and “check the ventilation”.
6. It did not uphold the complaint, as it had responded to the resident’s service requests regarding noise nuisance and was responding to his concerns regarding air quality.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 2 December 2024. He said that the ongoing noise and inadequate flooring/insulation was “severely” affecting his living conditions and health, and he had first reported the issue in 2015. Furthermore, he said the landlord did not explain why repeated emails and follow-ups “went unanswered” and it “failed to take suitable action for over a year”.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 December 2024. It said that it found no evidence of noise nuisance from the neighbour and the noise was established to be household noise. It went on to say that it had attempted to arrange an inspection of the neighbour’s property but received no response. It said it intended to carry out an inspection to assess the flooring and determine if further action was necessary. The landlord said it partly upheld the complaint.

Post complaint

The landlord provided further information on 18 August 2025 following an MP enquiry. In its response to the MP it said that:
1. Sound proofing would not be considered by its responsive repairs team, as it was classed as an improvement rather than a repair and was not something it could offer. It apologised that incorrect information had previously been provided to the resident.
2. A “thorough review” was conducted of the lease agreement, and while it did not require the neighbour not to cause a “nuisance,” the lease agreement also did not require them to install carpeting.
3. Both parties had been referred to mediation and it was awaiting the outcome.
4. As the MP had said a qualified surveyor had assessed the flat as unfit for habitation, it requested a copy of the report so it could review the findings and consider the appropriate next steps.
The landlord also provided this Service with a copy of the surveyor’s report, instructed by the resident, where works were recommended. This was dated 19 February 2025 and said that:
1. “It is very unlikely that the partitions, or the ceiling above the bedroom, include effective acoustic insulation.”
2. “The works are urgent as the noise disturbance is causing the tenant not to occupy the bedroom and instead sleep in the living room.”
3. “The noise disturbance from the neighbour’s flat, and from the staircase connecting to the neighbour’s flat, is likely to be a considerable nuisance, and render the resident’s flat unfit for human habitation.”
In our recent communications with the resident, he said that despite his requests for copies of the noise recordings, the landlord had not provided these or inspected the neighbour’s floor covering.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion … are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The resident raised a complaint regarding his concerns about the air quality in the property, and the landlord responded accordingly at stage 1. No additional evidence or information was provided in relation to this matter, and it appears that the resident did not raise this matter again in his escalation request. Accordingly, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the air quality concerns. Therefore, in our view, this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. A recommendation has, however, been included in this report that the landlord should issue a stage 2 response covering this matter if the resident wishes it to do so.

Scope of the investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact his living conditions have reportedly had on his health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim.

Reports of noise and requests for sound proofing

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
4. Examples include:
  1. Noise such as loud music, DIY or shouting.
  2. Harassment such as verbal or written abuse.
  3. Animal, vehicle and garden nuisance.
The policy also provides examples of behaviours it considers do not constitute ASB. These include:
1. Day-to-day living noise, which is not excessive or unreasonable.
2. Normal behaviour occurring at unusual times (for example, due to different working patterns), providing the resident is being considerate.
3. Noise transference due to poor sound insulation.
The ASB policy goes on to say that when the landlord receives an ASB report that relates to one of the above, it will consider the experience of and the impact on the victim, and continuously risk assess to understand the impact of ASB and signpost the victim to the relevant support provision. Additionally, the action that it will take will be proportionate. Furthermore, it reserves the right to not intervene with reports that are judged to fall outside of the scope of the definition of ASB.
A landlord’s ASB policy outlines its commitments but may not always detail what we consider to be the most appropriate approach to take in all the circumstances of a case. Our spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the need for landlords to develop the correct approach to ensure a fair and reasonable response, particularly in those instances where the noise is non-statutory and not ASB.
Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has a duty to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of reported ASB or noise. In addition, it must weigh in balance the evidence and the respective parties’ right to enjoy their home in deciding what action it should take.
It has been evidenced that the resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 7 June and 26 July 2023. He explained that the noise was causing him “significant disturbance, immense distress and impacting his life”. He went on to say that the noise was “exacerbating his disability”. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not provide timescales for responses to non–ASB reports, it does say it will consider the impact of reported behaviour on the victim. Despite it being evident that the issue was significantly impacting the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that these reports were responded to. This was not appropriate and contrary to the landlord’s policy. Additionally, it was at this point the landlord should have considered carrying out some form of risk assessment which would have allowed it to consider what support the resident required at an early stage of the case.
The resident contacted his local councillor on 3 September 2023, who then contacted the landlord on his behalf. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 October 2023 asking him to complete a diary of events and use a noise app. It is noted that the resident provided diary sheets during September 2023, but there is no evidence to suggest these were reviewed. Although we have not seen the landlord’s response to the councillor, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord only responded to the resident after the councillor’s intervention. This suggests that the resident had been trying to contact the landlord since June 2023 and did not receive a response until October 2023. The landlord’s lack of response for nearly 4 months was unreasonable and unfair to the resident, especially as he had clearly outlined several times the impact the noise was having on him.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord also advised the resident that it would review his case “in 2 weeks”. However, the case notes show that the resident chased the landlord for a response on 13 November 2023, which was over a month later. This apparently unexplained delay was not appropriate. The landlord should have fulfilled its commitment to contact the resident, especially considering that it had not responded to him for nearly 4 months prior. The landlord responded to the resident on 14 November 2023 to discuss installing noise monitoring equipment and any support it could provide the resident. This was a positive step by the landlord to gather necessary evidence; however, consideration should have been given to this much earlier, particularly as the resident had made the landlord aware of his vulnerabilities in July 2023.
On 10 January 2024, the landlord advised the resident that he had been placed on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. This occurred more than 7 months after the resident’s initial request, which was an unreasonable delay. Additionally, the resident made a further 3 requests for noise monitoring equipment between June and November 2023. It was only on 14 November 2023 that the landlord addressed these requests, and it took a further 2 months before he was informed that he had been added to the waiting list. This was unfair to the resident, especially as he had repeatedly raised the issue. The lack of prompt action contributed to the delay in resolving the issue one way or another.
The resident and landlord continued to liaise throughout January 2024. Sometime later, on 14 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord, explaining that he had not received any contact from the new member of staff dealing with his case. He also made enquiries about the installation date of the noise monitoring equipment. There were no further notes in relation to this until 12 July 2024, when the resident requested a call back. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s requests. This was unreasonable, particularly given that his previous attempts to engage the landlord were also not promptly responded to.
While it may be the case that the landlord had responded, there are no records to demonstrate this. The lack of records indicate a record keeping failure. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In the resident’s complaint dated 7 September 2024, he stated that the ongoing noise disturbance was significantly affecting his health and well-being. He chased a response on 2 October 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 October 2024, summarising its understanding of the issues. It said that noise monitoring equipment had been provided to the resident on 24 September 2024 and that it had planned to collect the device on 8 October 2024, following an extension request from the resident. However, it was not provided until more than 15 months after his initial request. While it is accepted there may be limited availability of such equipment, we consider this delay to be unreasonable as it prolonged a resolution for the resident. Furthermore, there were no records detailing the installation of the equipment, which is another record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 1 response further outlined the actions it could take if noise was deemed to be “loud”. It also said that sound proofing was not within its direct services but could be considered by the responsive repairs team. While the response was helpful in explaining what steps the landlord could take regarding the noise, this information should have been communicated to the resident earlier to better manage his expectations. The resident had been requesting sound proofing for over 15 months, and this was the first time he was informed that the matter would need to be addressed by the repairs team. This was unfair to the resident as he was left waiting for over 15 months without clear guidance or realistic expectations. The lack of timely communication was evidently frustrating for him and prolonged his distress.
The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it had responded to his requests for service regarding the noise nuisance. However, we consider this was not appropriate, as the landlord failed to acknowledge the significant amount of time the issue had been ongoing, as well as its failures and delays in responding to the residents’ concerns, especially during the initial stages of his reports.
The resident escalated his complaint on 2 December 2024. He expressed his belief that the ongoing noise was caused by inadequate flooring and noise insulation between the 2 flats. He explained that his autism meant he was particularly sensitive to noise. He requested that the landlord take action such as “enforcement of proper flooring compliance” and “structural adjustments to mitigate noise transmission”. The landlord’s repeated lack of engagement and communication with the resident regarding his vulnerabilities is concerning. There is an absence of records indicating that the landlord sought advice, guidance, or support on how to better accommodate and assist the resident in light of his vulnerabilities. This demonstrates a failure to fulfil its responsibility to provide adequate support and also demonstrates a lack of sufficient consideration of the resident’s well-being and understanding of the importance of a tailored approach to vulnerable residents.
Internal email correspondence of 30 December 2024 indicated that the noise recordings were reviewed by the landlord, and it was determined that there was no evidence of loud noise originating from the neighbour’s property. Furthermore, the landlord identified that the noise was household noise and noted that the case manager had attempted to arrange an inspection of the property on 2 separate occasions but received no response from the neighbour. In circumstances such as this, the landlord should have made additional attempts to contact the neighbour to arrange a property inspection, clearly explaining the purpose and the importance of the visit.
The landlord should also have kept the resident informed of its efforts and set realistic expectations regarding possible outcomes and any next steps, which it failed to do in this case. Keeping the resident informed, even in the absence of new information, would have demonstrated that the landlord was taking his concerns seriously and actively working towards a resolution. This approach would have helped the resident feel better supported, heard, and reassured.
On 31 December 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The response stated that the recorded noise was not considered a nuisance and was instead classified as household noise. A further action plan was outlined, including a property inspection to assess the neighbour’s flooring. The landlord said the outcome of the inspection would determine its next steps. The planned inspection demonstrated a proactive approach and a willingness to investigate the matter further.
Additionally, the landlord provided the resident with a senior member of staff’s contact details. In doing so it demonstrated it was prioritising the resident’s concerns and offering him a higher level of support. These actions emphasised a willingness to escalate the issue and a commitment to resolving the problem effectively, and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, the landlord said it was partially upholding the complaint, but the response did not explain why or offer any redress, which was not appropriate.
In the additional evidence provided by the landlord, it said that sound proofing would not be considered by its responsive repairs team, as that type of work was classed as an improvement rather than a repair. Although sound proofing may be a resolution, the landlord is entitled to make such a decision which may have wider financial implications. Nevertheless, it should have established its position and communicated this much earlier on, particularly as it had said in its stage 1 response sound proofing was something its responsive repairs team could consider, albeit not guaranteeing the resident’s request. Its communications on this point were inconsistent and therefore misleading.
The landlord also confirmed that a thorough review had been undertaken of the neighbour’s lease agreement. This too was something that should have been undertaken during the initial stages of the investigation when establishing key details, such as the neighbour’s tenure and the potential action available to the landlord.
The landlord said that both parties had been referred to mediation and it was waiting on the outcome. Mediation is an early intervention tool and so should have been offered promptly following the resident’s reports. Early intervention is key in an attempt to stop matters escalating and to prevent deterioration of neighbourly relationships. Additionally, it can serve as a means to assist in finding a resolution to a noise issue. While the landlord’s offer of mediation was positive, the likelihood of its effectiveness was reduced due to the timing of the offer.
Finally, the landlord said it would review the findings of the surveyor’s report and consider the next appropriate step. This was a reasonable approach following the independent survey, as it allowed the landlord to assess the expert advice before taking further action. However, the landlord should have considered conducting its own inspection of the resident’s property using its own surveyors, as this would have allowed for a prompt assessment of the issues and help identify any underlying structural problems that might have been contributing to the noise.
While it is acknowledged that some steps were taken to investigate the resident’s reports, it was not appropriate that these actions were delayed and did not happen until the end of the complaints process.
In summary, the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s reports of noise were inconsistent with its policies and demonstrated significant delays in progressing the matter. Despite the resident experiencing ongoing noise issues that he said severely impacted his health and well-being, especially given his vulnerabilities and disability, the landlord failed to respond promptly or effectively at various stages. It did not undertake timely investigations, or adequately document its actions, reflecting poor record keeping.
The landlord also failed to consider an early risk assessment, did not keep the resident adequately informed of any progress, and did not sufficiently explore appropriate solutions available to it. Moreover, its decision to classify the noise as household noise without proper investigation, coupled with the lack of proactive communication and unsuccessful attempts to contact the neighbour, indicated a lack of sufficient consideration and empathy. The landlord’s approach lacked the necessary tailored support for a vulnerable resident, and its delays and communication failures prolonged the resident’s distress. Overall, the landlord did not adhere to its policies on timely responses, proper investigation and support for vulnerable residents, resulting in an inadequate and delayed resolution for him.
For these reasons, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise and requests for sound proofing. As a result, £600 compensation has been awarded to him. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a finding of maladministration has been made, and also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy based on “neighbour nuisance”.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2–stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will provide a response to the complainant within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At the final stage, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalated complaint. It will acknowledge both complaints and escalation requests within 2 working days of receipt.
The resident raised a complaint on 7 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 17 September 2024, which was 6 working days later and 1 day outside of the timescale specified in our statutory Complaint Handling Code. On 2 October 2024, the resident chased the landlord for a response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 October 2024, which was 15 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. Consequently, both the acknowledgement and the stage 1 response were both issued outside of its policy timescales. The delay in acknowledging the complaint further delayed the overall response, which was not appropriate.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 December 2024. Although the complaint was not acknowledged, the response was provided within 19 working days of the complaint being made. This overall timeframe was appropriate, as it complied with the 20–working–day timescale outlined in its complaint policy. However, it is important to note that the lack of acknowledgement of the escalated complaint constituted a departure from the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident was not adequately updated about the progress of his complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to recognise that it had delayed in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and in acknowledging his escalated complaint at stage 2. It failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint handling failures or put them right, which was not in line with our dispute resolution principles to ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
For the reasons outlined above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and £100 compensation has been awarded. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where a resident has expended time and trouble in pursuing a complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding air quality is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise and requests for sound proofing,
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £700, made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience arising from its response to his reports of noise.
  2. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to his complaint.
3. Write to the resident confirming its intentions regarding the independent surveyor’s report in relation to the noise and clearly explain its decision making process. A copy of this communication should also be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Issues a stage 2 complaint response in relation to the resident’s air quality concerns, if he wishes to escalate this aspect of his complaint.
2. Familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints. As previously referenced, this offers insight and recommendations that would have been useful in this case, particularly around mediation and flooring. The landlord should give consideration to producing a separate noise policy incorporating the recommendations in the spotlight report.
3. Considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This could include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
4. Arranges for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.