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 & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313077)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313077

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 March 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 response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, second floor flat (the property) and has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 1990.
  2. The resident made intermittent reports of noise from her neighbour living in the flat below hers from 2017. Some reports were handled by the landlord as antisocial behaviour (ASB) and others as everyday noise. There were long periods when no reports were made to the landlord.
  3. On 19 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused her request for soundproofing. She advised that her relationship with the neighbour had improved, but she wanted the landlord to pay for soundproofing underlay to resolve the noise transference.
  4. The landlord issued an informal response to the complaint on 3 November 2022. It explained that it could not carry out the soundproofing as there was no damage to the building, and the landlord had not enhanced or modified the structure.
  5. The resident followed up her complaint on 3 February 2023. She advised that her neighbour was due to move out of the below flat and she felt that soundproofing was essential for when a new tenant moved in.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 February 2023 it said an ASB case had been closed in September 2022 as the noise issues had improved. It said it did not undertake soundproofing, and it was unable to offer a monetary contribution towards this. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord said that if the resident wanted to proceed with soundproofing, this would need to be done at her own expense.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 May 2023, saying she wanted her request for soundproofing reconsidered. She said the previous tenant had moved out, but she could hear banging doors when a new tenant viewed the flat.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 25 May 2023 it said:
    1. The previous ASB case had been closed as the resident had not made noise reports in months. The reports she made recently were considered mostly daily living sounds, including snores and coughs.
    2. It did not dispute that there was sound transference between the property and the flat below. However, soundproofing was not a service it offered.
    3. It did not uphold the complaint and was unable to assist with her request.
  9. In her referral to us the resident said she remained dissatisfied that the landlord refused her requests for soundproofing despite noise being an issue since she had lived in the property. She said that all noises could be heard from the neighbours including everyday noises and ASB. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking a monetary contribution from the landlord towards soundproofing the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We have been provided with correspondence relating to historic reports of noise and requests for soundproofing intermittently between 2017 and 2022. These historic reports are noted for context. However, we ask that residents raise complaints within a reasonable period of the issues arising, normally within 12 months. As the complaint in this case was made in October 2022, this investigated is focused on events from April 2022 to May 2023 (when the landlord issued its final complaint response).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing

  1. The resident made noise reports to the landlord in July 2022, stating that she could hear coughs, snoring, doors being shut, and the neighbour’s son playing. She felt the noise could be resolved with soundproofing being installed under her carpet. On one occasion, she reported loud music and a dog barking. The noise reports were infrequent throughout the case.
  2. The landlord completed an ASB case review in September 2022 and concluded that it would close the case as the resident’s relationship with the neighbour had improved. When the landlord closed the case, it contacted the resident and informed her that it would not pay for soundproofing as she had requested. It recorded that this decision was made as it was unable to confirm that soundproofing would reduce the noise, and the reported noise had recently improved. The landlord’s response was proportionate to the evidence available to it. Although the resident intermittently reported noise from the neighbour, she told the landlord in August and September 2022 that the noise had improved.
  3. In response to the resident’s request for the landlord to reconsider soundproofing the property, the landlord explained that there was no disrepair to the structure of the building, and it had not made any modifications to the building. It said that soundproofing was not something it offered.  Soundproofing works constitute an improvement outside of the landlords’ repair obligation and they are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building or providing a financial contribution towards soundproofing. Further, landlords are entitled to take into account the consistency of the service it provides to residents reporting noise from neighbours.
  4. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord listened to her noise recordings, informally contacted the neighbour about the reported noise, regularly communicated with the resident, and visited the property to investigate the noise transference. The landlord fairly investigated the noise and its actions in response to the reports were reasonable.
  5. The landlord did not dispute the noise transference reported by the resident. However, given the level of evidence available, it was limited in the steps it could take in response to the reports. It was appropriate that the landlord encouraged the resident to continue to report any further noise disturbances, although the resident has informed us that she had stopped reporting noise recently as she did not want any repercussions.
  6. We do not doubt the impact that the reported noise had on the resident. However, our role is to consider whether the landlord appropriately considered and responded to the resident’s request for soundproofing (or a monetary contribution for this). We are satisfied that the landlord completed sufficient investigations and made a fair decision based on the evidence available to it at the time. Although the outcome was not what the resident hoped for, the landlord explained its reasons for refusing the soundproofing to the resident and continued to respond to her noise reports. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to install soundproofing or financially contribute towards this. As such, we have not identified any failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints process sets out a 2-stage process. After a complaint has been logged, the landlord will issue a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, a response will be provided within 20 working days from the date of escalation. The landlord’s complaints policy allows for small service issues to be addressed as an informal complaint with the issue being resolved in person or on the phone usually on the same day.
  2. The landlord recorded that the resident wanted to log a complaint about its decision not to soundproof the property on 19 October 2022. She provided details of her complaint and explained what she wanted to resolve the matter. The landlord should have logged a stage 1 complaint at this stage, but it failed to do this. Instead it provided the resident with an informal response on 3 November 2022, more than 2 weeks after she had raised the complaint. The response did not inform the resident how she could escalate the matter if she remained dissatisfied with the response. This was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord’s decision not to respond to the initial complaint at stage 1 was not in accordance with its complaints process and left the resident unclear as to how her complaint was being handled. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’) as this causes unnecessary confusion.
  4. The resident followed up her complaint on 8 January and 3 February 2023, but did not receive a stage 1 response until 13 February 2023. Although these delays were not significant, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing a response and the landlord had not outlined its process or apologised for incorrectly responding to her initial complaint informally. After the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 3 May 2023, the landlord issued a final response on 25 May 2023.
  5. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint led to unnecessary delays through its complaints process. The Code states that “a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”.
  6. The matter was exacerbated as the landlord’s complaint handling failings were not acknowledged in its subsequent complaint responses. The resident experienced delays and incurred time and trouble chasing up responses. As a result, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and it is ordered to pay £100 compensation to put things right. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for findings of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in this case.