Luton Borough Council (202324641)

Decision
Case ID	202324641
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Luton Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 March 2026

Background

The resident said he has been hearing noise from the flat above since 2018. He believes previous works removed soundproofing that was not reinstated. He asked the landlord to improve the soundproofing or prioritise his move to another property. He also told the landlord that he lives with mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about soundproofing.
The handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about soundproofing.
There was maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Soundproofing

The landlord has not shown that it considered its options following the acoustic survey or made a clear decision with reasons. It also did not evidence checks of the 2020 ceiling repair records to address the report that soundproofing was removed and not reinstated. As a result, the landlord did not provide a clear, reasoned position on what action it could take.

Associated Complaint

The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure, and its responses did not address all complaint points, notably the alleged removal and non‑reinstatement of soundproofing. The stage 2 reply, issued one day after escalation, contained errors and did not demonstrate a full review.

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 22 April 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the ceiling of the property specifically regarding the removal of soundproofing and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the soundproofing was removed in 2020 whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 06 May 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 for distress and inconvenience in regard to the landlord’s response to soundproofing £150 for the time and trouble in the complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 April 2026
4	Information Order The landlord must write to the resident with: a clear explanation of what it can and cannot do about soundproofing in this building type the outcome of the 2019 survey review any next steps available to the resident	No later than 22 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 September 2023	The resident complained about long‑term noise from the flat above, saying he could hear conversations and shouting, which affected his use of the home. He said the landlord would not address soundproofing despite an earlier survey. He also reported that soundproofing was not reinstated after plasterboard was replaced following a 2020 leak. He asked the landlord to improve the soundproofing or give him priority for a move.
6 December 2023	We wrote to the landlord asking that it responds to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by the 13 December 2023.
12 December 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 response it said: it apologised that the stage 1 complaint raised in September 2023 was not fully responded to and that the resident was not told how to escalate the resident was signposted to the Environmental Health team in 2018 the resident cancelled appointments for noise‑monitoring equipment because he believed the issue was due to soundproofing a 2019 acoustic survey showed the property met the regulations at the time of build and that no additional soundproofing could be installed it advised the resident to register for rehousing and bid for properties– it also gave advice on mutual exchange and other rehousing options it acknowledged that the previous complaint had not been fully addressed and that a follow‑up email was missed it understood the noise may cause difficulty and encouraged the resident to work with Environmental Health so the issues could be investigated
13 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said he saw staff remove soundproofing material during previous works and not reinstate it. He explained that the ongoing noise is causing him significant distress and that he does not consider the property a peaceful or stable home. He asked the landlord what action it intended to take regarding the soundproofing he believes was removed and not replaced.
14 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and apologised for an administrative error at stage 1, which meant the resident’s email sent on 22 September 2023 was not picked up until 11 December 2023. It said the building would have been constructed to the standards and regulations in place at the time. It explained that it is not possible to soundproof existing flats to the same level as new builds, as any works would not achieve the desired outcome. The landlord said it recognised the resident would be unhappy and noted he had been given information about moving options and mutual exchange.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us. He said the properties were built in the 1950s but that ceiling works carried out since then had removed soundproofing material. The resident said he wants the landlord to either improve the soundproofing or prioritise his request to move.

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	The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about soundproofing
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

The resident has reported noise from his neighbours since 2018. This investigation does not assess every action taken during that period, as the passage of time means some records may no longer be available and it would not be proportionate for us to review the entire history. We refer to earlier events only where they provide relevant context for this complaint and where the landlord referred to them in its complaint responses.
The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. While we cannot assess liability for impact on health, we can consider and award compensation for any distress or inconvenience cause.

What we have looked at

On 6 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint about soundproofing. He said he heard shouting, swearing, stamping and ordinary conversations from the flat above. He said he used earplugs at night and headphones during the day. He said a previous soundproofing test failed and that, after a leak in 2020, the ceiling was replaced and soundproofing above it was not reinstated. He asked the landlord to improve the soundproofing or give him priority to move.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord said it would review the 2019 soundproofing survey to check whether any recommendations remained outstanding. It also confirmed the resident’s rehousing banding and outlined other moving options. While it was appropriate for the landlord to review the survey findings is missed an opportunity to respond to the residents complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2023. It said the resident had been signposted to the Environmental Protection Team (EPT) in 2018. It noted he had cancelled appointments for noise‑monitoring equipment. A 2019 soundproofing survey showed the property met the standards in place at the time of build and that no further soundproofing could be installed. The landlord also advised the resident about rehousing, mutual exchange and other moving options, acknowledged missing a follow‑up email, and encouraged him to engage with EPT.
The landlord did not explain how it had considered the April 2019 acoustic survey, which found the property failed modern soundproofing standards and set out upgrade options. It also did not say what, if any, repair or contractor records were checked to respond to the report that soundproofing was removed and not reinstated after the 2020 ceiling works. In the circumstances, the response did not provide a clear, reasoned position on the options available or why certain actions were not feasible.
Landlords are not obliged to upgrade homes to modern soundproofing standards. Retrofitting to meet current standards would generally be an improvement rather than a repair. However, the resident reported that soundproofing was removed during previous ceiling works and not reinstated. If the landlord’s records show that material forming part of the building fabric was removed and not replaced, reinstating it would be a repair, not an improvement.
The landlord’s joint working protocol with the Environmental Protection Team (EPT) makes clear that EPT leads on statutory noise nuisance. The resident’s concern, however, was soundproofing — an issue relating to the building fabric. This is a matter for the landlord to consider under its repairs and property responsibilities. While referring statutory nuisance to EPT is appropriate, it does not remove the landlord’s duty to consider issues within its control, including whether its own works affected soundproofing or whether reinstatement was required.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work with residents to minimise noise caused by hard flooring. It considered this early on, but there is no evidence it revisited the issue when the resident complained again in 2023. Given the noise described was unlikely to be a statutory nuisance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore non‑statutory options within its control, including checking compliance with its flooring requirements. It did not show that it did so.
The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations about the purpose of the soundproofing survey. Its internal communications show there was uncertainty about why the survey was commissioned, particularly as it was unlikely to act on its findings. After the survey was completed, the landlord has not shown that it considered the results alongside the resident’s reports or his stated vulnerabilities. It also did not clearly explain to the resident what actions it could or could not take in response to those findings.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that payments over £250 may be appropriate where there is maladministration, repeated chasing, or a failure over time to follow procedures. Given the ongoing distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failure to reach a reasoned decision on soundproofing options, we have made an order of £250.
Overall, the landlord has not shown that it reached a clear or fully reasoned decision about soundproofing. The April 2019 acoustic report identified that the property did not meet modern standards and set out options that could improve performance. The landlord has not evidenced how it considered those options or whether it decided to pursue or reject them, with reasons. It also did not address the resident’s report that soundproofing was removed and not reinstated when the ceiling was replaced in 2020.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. These timescales were not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2. Adherence to the Code only became mandatory in 2024 and the landlord has since updated its policy.
The landlord did not treat the resident’s contact on 6 September 2023 as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord should have recognised the contact as an expression of and progressed as a stage 1 complaint at that time.
When the response was sent it did not address the resident’s key points about soundproofing. The complaint was sent late, not fully answered, and escalation information was not provided. These were departures from the landlord’s Complaints Procedure and from the Code, which requires timely responses and clear escalation rights so residents can progress their complaint without unnecessary effort.
The stage 2 response did not address all the resident’s complaint points. He said the landlord removed soundproofing during previous works and did not reinstate it, but the landlord did not respond to this issue. It also did not explain what records were reviewed or why no findings were given. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve a key point of the complaint and to demonstrate a full stage 2 review.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response only one day after the resident asked to escalate his complaint. While timely responses are important, the speed of this reply, combined with the spelling errors and the lack of answers to all the points raised, could reasonably give the resident the impression that the landlord had not given due care or full consideration to his stage 2 complaint. A stage 2 review should provide a clear, complete and carefully considered response to each issue raised.
These failings caused delay, uncertainty, and additional time and trouble for the resident. The resident had to pursue escalation without clear guidance and did not receive a complete outcome at stage 2 on the key issue he raised.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could consider how it manages information about repairs, property condition, and complaint handling. In this case, it was unable to provide all the records needed to demonstrate how it considered the resident’s reports about soundproofing, and gaps in repair records contributed to unclear complaint responses. Strengthening record‑keeping practices, ensuring information is consistently recorded and easily retrievable, would support clearer decision‑making and enable the landlord to provide accurate explanations to residents in the future.

Communication

The landlord should review its communication with residents. Some information was provided without full explanation, and parts of the stage 2 response contained presentation errors. Improving the clarity and presentation of written communication would help ensure residents understand the reasons for the landlord’s decisions and maintain confidence in the complaint process.