London Borough of Waltham Forest (202402268)

Decision
Case ID	202402268
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Waltham Forest
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a one‑bedroom flat. She reported noise to the landlord from the neighbour living in the property above her. She said the noise occurred during the day and night and had continued for 2 years. She explained that the noise affected her sleep, health, and wellbeing. She said it had taken no action to address the problem, despite being aware of her vulnerabilities. Her grandson represents her in bringing the complaint to us. For convenience, this report refers to both the resident and her grandson as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise by a neighbour.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise by a neighbour.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise by a neighbour

4. The landlord took positive initial action, but it delayed in providing support. It provided limited evidence to demonstrate its communication, record keeping, or consideration of alternative options.

Associated complaint

5. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timeframe.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 April 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in the handling of the residents reports of noise by a neighbour. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 20 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider visiting the resident to discuss her current circumstances. It should provide information on the support it can offer and outline the options available for her to document any noise.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 July 2023	The resident reported noise from the upstairs neighbour to the landlord. She said she approached the neighbour and asked them to reduce the noise, but they refused. She explained that noise occurred throughout the day and night, disrupting her sleep and harming her mental health. It contacted her on the same day and took her incident statement over the phone to begin its investigation.
10 November 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord to complain about noise from the upstairs neighbour. She explained the issue had been ongoing for 2 years and was affecting her health, causing stress and anxiety. She reported noise from children, people walking around the property, banging, and drilling. She said this occurred at all hours.
21 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the main issue was that the resident had previously reported the noise and no one had contacted her. It stated it made several attempts to contact her on her landline and by email. It said it attempted a visit on 16 November 2023, but there was no answer. It completed a visit on 17 November 2023, during which the noise issues were discussed.   The landlord said it would open an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case and would contact the resident at least monthly. It said she consented to it contacting her neighbour to carry out a full investigation as part of the action plan. It apologised for the difficulties in contacting her after the initial report. It added that she now had direct contact with her tenancy officer.
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said the resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024 because the noise issue had not been resolved. It explained it had registered the matter as an ASB case to monitor incidents. It said it responded to an MP enquiry and had interviewed both the resident and the neighbour on 2 occasions. It said it had no record of any completed diary sheets and that it carried out a welfare check on 25 April 2024. It also listed various dates on which it had contacted the resident, both from its tenancy officer and independent living officer.   The landlord said it investigated the ASB case in line with its policy and found no evidence of ASB. It said the reported noise mostly related to household activities, such as children, walking, and appliances operating during reasonable hours. It concluded that it found no issues with how it managed the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said the issue was ongoing and wants it to address the noise coming from the property upstairs.

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	Reports of noise by a neighbour
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the noise on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.  We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

What we have considered

7. The landlord provided limited information about the noise reports and how it managed them. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation, has therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
8. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
9. The landlord responded to the initial noise report within its policy timescale of 5 working days. It completed an incident report and recorded an action plan on 4 July 2023. However, it is unclear what actions it took after this. It did not open an ASB case until 17 November 2023, after the resident raised a complaint. Although it said it attempted contact during this period, it provided limited evidence to demonstrate this.
10. The landlord said it had no record of providing the resident or the neighbour with a copy of its investigation findings. This is not in line with its ASB policy, which requires it to record information in accordance with Knowledge and Information Management principles. It should ensure it retains records of all attempted and successful communication. It should document investigation findings and provide them when necessary.
11. The landlord said it made attempts to contact the resident and there is evidence that it completed a welfare check. It identified the need for a safeguarding referral during the initial incident report. This was in line with its ASB policy, which requires it to provide support throughout the resident’s case. That said, the referral was not made until 2 February 2024. It is unclear why there was a delay in completing the referral when the need was identified in July 2023. It should aim to complete promised actions at an earlier stage to ensure necessary support is arranged without delay.
12. The landlord interviewed both the resident and the neighbour. It interviewed the neighbour in November 2023 and again in February 2024. It also sent the neighbour a letter reminding them of the tenancy terms and conditions. However, it is unclear why there was a delay in contacting the neighbour, and it did not provide records of these interviews.
13. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said the reported noise was normal household noise. When reported behaviour does not meet the definition of ASB, its policy states it will seek to resolve the situation through mediation. It is unclear from the evidence that it considered this option.
14. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets to document the noise. This was in line with its noise nuisance procedure, which says it may ask residents to record incidents to help understand the problem. It repeated this request in April 2024 as she had not provided these. She told us she had been unable to complete them, but she did not explain why. It is unclear whether she informed it of this at the time. However, given it had not received the diary sheets, it should have checked if she required an alternative method of recording.
15. The landlord outlined its noise app in its initial action plan, but there is no evidence this was discussed further. It did not explain the purpose or benefit of completing diary sheets in its stage 2 complaint response. It should have ensured the resident understood why it was important to complete these and how it would use this information for its investigation. It is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. Without sufficient evidence of the noise it would have been limited in the actions it could have taken.
16. The landlord’s ASB policy states that staff should prioritise complaints using a risk based approach. The policy also says that partnership working, including referrals to Environmental Health teams, forms part of its approach to tackling noise nuisance. However, based on the evidence provided, it is not clear that it completed a risk assessment or signposted the resident to Environmental Health.
17. In summary, the landlord took positive action by completing an incident report, an action plan, a safeguarding referral, and interviews. However, there were  delays in taking action and several instances of poor record management. It should have provided the resident with a more detailed explanation of its proposed actions and offered alternatives where appropriate.
18. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the failings identified. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
20. The landlord did not provide evidence that it acknowledged the complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2. However, it issued its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the original complaint, in line with its policy timescales.
21. The landlord did not provide evidence of the resident’s escalation request. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, it said it received the escalation request on 22 April 2024. Based on the available evidence, it issued its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, in line with its policy timescales.

Learning

General learning

22. The landlord should ensure it follows its ASB policy and procedures when responding to all cases. This includes keeping accurate records of all visits, meetings, telephone calls, and action taken.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision making process and an audit trail after the event. It should review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord should ensure it acknowledges complaints and escalation requests. It should record and log these appropriately.

Communication

25. Communication with the resident was limited. The landlord should ensure it records and documents all contact with residents to demonstrate both attempted and successful contact.