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 Wandsworth (202341764)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341764

London Borough of Wandsworth

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from an upstairs neighbour.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 5 June 2023 and was an introductory tenancy for the first 12 months. The property is a flat, situated in a larger block. There is a neighbouring flat directly above the property. The resident lives with her young daughter and son, and she told us that her children are both autistic and have ADHD. The resident advised they have sensory processing disorders and wear ear defenders when outside and at school. The resident also has a sensory processing disorder and is hypersensitive to noise.
  2. On 28 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that excessive noise was emanating from the property above. The landlord met with the resident’s upstairs neighbour on 1 August 2023 and discussed laying thick carpet and underlay to reduce the noise transference.
  3. The resident reported noise transference frequently to the landlord thereafter, sometimes including detailed diary sheets which showed that the noises sometimes occurred at night. The noises reported were typically children running and banging, furniture being moved or dragged and the washing machine spinning.
  4. Between 24 August 2023 and 9 October 2023, the landlord engaged with both parties about the reports. The landlord referred the resident and the neighbour to mediation in this period, which the neighbour agreed to on 6 November 2023. The landlord met with the neighbour again to discuss the noise reports. On or around this date all parties agreed that the resident would communicate directly with the neighbour about the noise going forward.
  5. The resident continued to make frequent reports to the landlord and the local council and the landlord visited both properties on 12 January 2024 to ‘carry out a noise assessment and review the floor coverings.’ It concluded the noise did not constitute a nuisance and again proposed that the upstairs neighbour might consider laying a thicker carpet and underlay to reduce noise transference.
  6. On 2 February 2024 both parties signed a mediation agreement which confirmed that the neighbour would look into laying thicker carpet and underlay, limit moving furniture, hoovering and using the washing machine to reasonable hours and keep household noise to a minimum after 10pm. It also confirmed both residents would use the buzzer intercom to communicate about noise issues in future and noted the situation was unlikely to improve substantially until new floor coverings were installed.
  7. On 21 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that it was not doing enough to resolve the noise. On 26 March 2024 the landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed:

a.     The actions taken and advice it had given to the resident, such as meeting with both parties, engaging the local authority to carry out investigations, and referring the resident and her neighbour to mediation.

b.     It understood that distress was being caused to the resident, the noises being reported were ‘general living noise’ and the actions it had taken were appropriate.

c.      It was working with the upstairs neighbour to encourage them to put floor coverings down, but apologised that it could not provide a timescale by which this might be completed.

d.     The resident could continue to collect evidence and work with the local authority if she believed the noise may constitute a ‘statutory nuisance’, in which case it may be able to take further action.

  1. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day. She explained was unhappy because:

a.     The noise transference issues remained unresolved and it was having a significant impact. 

b.     The landlord had delayed responding to the complaint at stage 1 and had not responded to a complaint made in October 2023 about staff conduct.

  1. On 24 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:

a.     It stood by its stage 1 position that it had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s noise reports, although it had not been effective.

b.     It continued to work with the neighbour around the installation of floor coverings, but that the neighbour was under no obligation to do this.

c.      The local council had been unable to corroborate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, preventing the landlord from taking any formal enforcement action against the neighbour.

d.     It was sorry for its delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response.

  1. On 13 May 2024 the landlord emailed to the resident to confirm that the neighbour was installing new floor coverings. On 24 May 2024 the resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise transference.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Parts of the resident’s complaint referenced dissatisfaction with actions taken by the Noise Complaint Line, the Environmental Health team, and other departments which carry out functions administered by the local council. We can only consider complaints about councils in their role as landlords and not their wider role as a local council. Any complaints that relate to these functions would be better discussed with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Actions taken by these bodies has been included in this report for context only.

The resident’s reports of noise transference from an upstairs neighbour

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that it will work with complainants to agree further actions where appropriate, and set out expectations. If further evidence gathering is required, it will work with residents to help with this, for example by collecting noise diary sheets. It advises residents to report out of hours noise to the local authority, which will try to attend at the time; the landlord will later review the information given to it by the local authority. It encourages residents to resolve problems by ‘talking through the issues’, which may mean formal mediation where appropriate.
  2. We have not seen any evidence relating to the resident’s first report of noise made on 28 July 2023. The landlord later said that it ‘provided the resident with guidance for reporting ASB ad a noise diary sheet.’ It told the resident it would ‘contact the neighbour’ and that it ‘facilitated contact between the two parties to enable the resident to inform the neighbour of any disturbances’. This suggests the landlord did take these actions and this has not been disputed by the resident.
  3. The landlord also met with the neighbour promptly on 1 August 2023 to discuss next steps (laying a carpet and underlay).It met with the neighbour again on 24 August 2023, finding that some actions had been taken to reduce noise. It noted the neighbour was open to direct communication with the resident, which the landlord appropriately advised both parties to engage with, in line with its policy.
  4. On 8 October 2023 the resident reported that the arrangement was no longer working; the landlord later described this as a ‘breakdown in communication’ between both parties. The landlord took appropriate steps to refer both parties to mediation the following day. This was good practice and demonstrates that the landlord considered the impact the situation was having on the resident’s family by responding quickly.
  5. The neighbour agreed to the mediation on 6 November 2023 but did not meet with the mediators until 2 February 2024. The mediators and landlord both kept the resident up to date that this delay was due difficulties arranging to meet with the neighbour. The evidence supports this, showing that this delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  6. In the meantime, the evidence shows that the landlord continued to adequately support the resident in collecting evidence, in line with its policy, for example by reviewing the resident’s reports of noise. It forwarded these reports on to the local council where it felt it was appropriate to do, such as on 15 November 2023.
  7. It also carried out independent investigations into the resident’s noise reports, such as attempting to visit the neighbour on 22 December 2023, and successfully visiting both properties on 12 January 2024. During the January visit, it assessed the noise to establish if it might constitute a ‘nuisance’, and reviewed the neighbour’s floor coverings. It also interviewed the neighbour in response to specific reports of noise, such as an incident where a washing machine had been used late at night on 16 January 2024. It found that this was an isolated incident due to a child being sick in the night. The evidence also shows that it kept the resident updated about these developments, again in line with its policy.
  8. The landlord appropriately cooperated with the local council during its investigations and reviewed the findings of the local council’s investigations, in line with its policy. The stage 2 response appropriately confirmed that because there was no evidence of a nuisance, its ability to take enforcement action against the neighbour was limited. This is in line with the overarching legislation, which is referenced in the landlord’s ASB policy.
  9. It was good practice that although the evidence did not support taking formal enforcement action, the landlord took other steps to try and improve the situation for the resident. Throughout the period assessed, the landlord frequently and repeatedly took steps to encourage and support the neighbour putting thicker carpets and underlay down, to reduce noise transference. It is not appropriate to share specific details in this report of the landlord’s interactions with third parties, but the evidence supports this and floor coverings were later installed in or around May 2024.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by managing the resident’s expectations in its complaint responses. It explained the neighbour was under no obligation to lay the coverings and said it could not give her a timescale by which this would be completed. The signed mediation agreement from February 2024 noted that both parties understood that the situation was unlikely to improve until the floor coverings could be installed. Despite this, the resident reported a ‘95% improvement’ in the noise transference on 24 April 2024, suggesting that the landlord’s actions likely had some positive impact.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord took appropriate and timely steps in response to the resident’s reports, in line with its policy. All parties agree that the adverse effect caused to the resident by the noise transference was significant. The evidence shows that the landlord considered this. The resident felt that the landlord should have done more to support her in resolving the noise, however the landlord complied with its relevant obligations and this investigation has found no failings. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from an upstairs neighbour.
  12. We published our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints in October 2022, which summarises that often where there are reports of noise which are not (or are unlikely to be) ASB, many landlords still view these reports ‘through the lens of ASB’. The report notes that it can be ‘unfair to both the resident making the complaint and the resident being complained about for the noise to be treated as something it is not’ and that it is ‘harder for the landlord to make consistent and reasonable decisions if it does not have the right framework for all types of noise reports.’
  13. Although we found no failings in this case and observed elements of good practice, the report makes several observations and recommendations which may be useful for the landlord to consider, particularly the benefit of having a separate framework for handling noise complaints. We have recommended that the landlord conduct a senior management review of its handling of this case. It may choose to consider whether amending its ASB Policy, or introducing a new policy, procedure, or other framework, to guide its future handling of reports of noise transference, may be beneficial to its future service delivery.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s suggestions and complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it cannot reply within 10 working days, it will inform the resident of the reason why. Our Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs) are to ‘be fair, put things right,’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 February 2024 but the landlord delayed responding until 24 working days later, on 26 March 2024. The landlord apologised for this delay on 25 March 2024, but there is no evidence that it updated the resident with the reason why there was a delay during the 10 working days after the complaint was received, in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord apologised for this delay in its stage 2 complaint response and took steps to learn from this failing and improve its future complaint handling. Both of these actions were appropriate and in line with our DRPs.
  4. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations that landlords are expected to follow in their complaint handling. At the time of the complaint, following the Code was not a statutory requirement. The Code states that landlords can put things right through ‘a number of actions which could include an apology, an acknowledgement and explanation when things have gone wrong’. By acknowledging its failing in complaint handling and by offering an apology, the landlord put things right. The landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from an upstairs neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may choose to conduct a senior management review of its handling of this case. As part of this, it may choose to consider whether amending its ASB Policy, or introducing a new policy, procedure, or other framework, to guide its future handling of reports of noise transference, may be beneficial to its future service delivery.