Newlon Housing Trust (202420617)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420617

Newlon Housing Trust

6 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder under a lease commencing 21 December 2006. The property is a 2 bedroom sixth floor flat.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s complaint concerns noise experienced from her adjoining neighbours.
The resident has explained in communications with this Service that the noise she has experienced from the perpetrators is longstanding, dating from the time of the first Covid lockdown, and has referred to contact with the landlord from May 2021.
The landlord has provided extracts of its antisocial behaviour (ASB) records to this Service. The landlord responded to a noise report made by the resident against the perpetrators on 17 May 2021 via the councils noise pollution team. The earliest record directed to the landlord is on 15 November 2021 when the resident reported noise of loud bass music, a child shouting and screaming in the corridor, hoovering and dragging of furniture on wooden floors.
The landlord and resident corresponded via email in November 2021 where the landlord confirmed it would send correspondence to residents with appropriate advice surrounding ASB, provided the resident with a breakdown of types of noise which would be considered everyday noise and directed the resident to the council’s noise pollution team as it would be able to attend and provide appropriate advice if the noise was found to be a statutory noise nuisance.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord received details of a noise report logged by the resident via the local authority’s out of hours online facility. The resident had reported that on 1 January 2022 her neighbours were playing loud bass music. She stated that she had previously reported this on a number of occasions. The resident asked the local authority to investigate and inform the landlord.
On 6 January 2022, the resident sent a lengthy email to the landlord. She reported noise she was experiencing which consisted of:
1. large items of furniture being dragged across the wooden floor between 30 and 60 times a day, which regularly started at 6.30am and went on until well after 23.00 and sometimes into the early hours of the morning;
2. use of the hoover 3 times a week up to 10 times a day which caused a loud scraping and crashing as it travelled across the wooden floor;
3. hammering, mostly in the evenings up to 6 or 7 times a week;
4. occasional loud bass music;
5. her neighbour’s child running around for hours at a time, bouncing a ball and riding a tricycle or scooter.
The resident made clear in the email that the noise was heavily amplified due to the wooden flooring in the neighbour’s flat and she asked the landlord if they had obtained its permission to put wooden flooring down. The resident did not consider the noise to be from everyday living. It was continuous and happened outside normal hours and was a statutory nuisance. She stated that she had contacted the local council numerous times and had been informed that the landlord was responsible. She asked for a review of why the landlord had not adhered to its noise policy, which she set out in her email. The email was supported by a diary record made by the resident of incidents of noise for the month of November 2021.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It explained that:
1. the noises of children did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance or ASB and neither it nor the local authority would take any action in regard to it;
2. the hoovering was not being carried out during unsociable hours therefore no further action would be taken in relation to it;
3. It would make contact with the neighbours regarding the movement of furniture to provide further advice on ways to reduce this noise.
In the interim, the landlord requested that the resident use the noise app which it said would be very helpful in determining whether it could take any further action. With regard to the resident’s statement that her neighbours had put down wooden flooring, it asked her for further information as to when this was done and if, prior to the change of flooring, she experienced any noise nuisance. It advised that if the property had laminate at the time of the neighbours moving in, this would have been checked to ensure it adhered to building regulations. However, if it was put down after they had moved in, it could look into this further.
The resident responded on 7 February 2022. She explained that she did not want to add noise app to her phone but was content for one of the landlord’s noise team to pay a visit to the property and hear for themselves. She reported further incidences of noise from hoovering, loud bass music, and dragging of furniture. She requested that the landlord ask the neighbours to put down carpets. The resident stated that the landlord itself should know when the wooden flooring was put in and asked how the flooring was checked to ensure it complied with the management rules of the development.
The landlord’s records indicate that on about 16 February 2022 it reviewed the lease provisions applicable to the neighbours’ property and noted these required carpets or other suitable floor coverings to the floors of the premises. The landlord noted that there was no mention that wooden or laminate flooring was not allowed.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update:
1. In light of the recent updates regarding the frequency of use of the hoover, it would issue a warning to the neighbours.
2. It had requested information from the relevant department regarding the flooring.
3. It had received a report from the local authority of loud music at the property on 10 February 2022 which would also be raised with the neighbours.
4. It signposted the resident to the local authority’s noise pollution team if she experienced further issues of loud music during unsociable hours. The landlord explained that the noise pollution team would attend and speak with the offending household at the time of the visit and share their findings with the landlord. This information would be used as evidence should it be required to take any further action at a later stage. It would update the resident following its contact with the neighbours.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbours, advising them that an allegation of ASB had been made. The letter included, among other things:
1. the specific allegations made against them, namely:
  1. hoovering within the property on a daily basis sometimes several times a day which due to the type of flooring at the property was causing a noise nuisance to other residents within the vicinity; and
  2. noise nuisance from loud music coming from within the property which had been reported to the local authority, most recently on 10 February 2022.
2. A warning that they could be in breach of clauses of its tenancy or lease agreement. It advised that these clauses contained the obligation not to cause, or allow others to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to (among others) any person residing in the premises; and the obligation not to use or allow to be used any noise making equipment, including vacuum cleaners, so loudly that it caused a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or so that it may be heard from outside of the premises between the hours of 11pm and 7am.
3. An explanation that if further reports of noise nuisance occurred in regard to the hoovering on the wooden floor, it would be required to look into the flooring and determine whether the type of flooring was suitable for the property and whether the appropriate permissions were sought should any new flooring have been installed.
Between 16 February 2022 and 14 March 2022, the landlord had further communications with the resident and the neighbours. From the landlord’s records, the neighbours had obtained permission from it for the wooden flooring in 2015, before it was put down.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2022 to update her on the matter following a management review:
1. It confirmed that it had checked the terms of the tenancy/lease regarding the flooring and whether permissions were sought and could advise that this was in order. No further action was to be taken regarding the flooring.
2. The neighbours had denied playing music on the date reported. The landlord stated that there was uncertainty as to whether the music heard was coming from their property or another.
3. Having reviewed the noise incidents regarding hoovering, the duration and time of day that this was occurring, this was determined to be household noise.
4. It had liaised with the neighbours regarding the resident’s concerns and they had taken measures to reduce impact noise. They had purchased a new hoover to reduce any impact noise on the floor; placed felt pads on the bottom of furniture to reduce scraping sounds when furniture was moved; and placed the speaker on a shelf.
5. The landlord advised that further incidents of loud music during unsociable hours should be reported to the local authority at the time this was occurring which would allow them to attend and determine where the noise was coming from. Once they had attended and determined whether the noise was statutory noise nuisance, they would share their findings with the landlord.
6. The landlord stated that if the resident experienced noise nuisance from music during the day, she could request the concierge to check which property it was coming from. It advised that sound could travel in an unexpected way, so that if there were access issues in regards to different floors, the concierge could assist with this and would report the findings to the landlord.
There followed further communications between the landlord and the resident between 21 March 2022 and 20 April 2022. In these communications, the resident questioned the basis of the landlord’s decision that the noise was everyday living noise and not statutory noise and she provided further examples of the noise she was experiencing (which was continuing). The landlord responded to these queries but maintained its decision. The resident also asked for further information as to whether the flooring in the neighbour’s property met building regulations on which the landlord agreed to make further enquiries and update the resident. It advised that the resident could make a complaint if she was unhappy with the way the case had been managed and explained how to do this. The resident confirmed that she would be making a complaint and approaching her MP and this Service.
On 4 May 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update regarding the building regulations. The landlord responded on 6 May 2022 in email correspondence, and confirmed its building services team provided information stating “the structure of the building means that it would have met building regulations at the time of construction and was approved and signed off by Islington Council.”
On 2 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. The main thrust of the resident’s complaint was that the noise she experienced was not due to everyday living as the landlord had decided. She referred to the evidence she had provided which demonstrated the frequency of the noise and its interference with her enjoyment of her property. She raised other issues including that the landlord had not followed its own policy in dealing with ASB; that it had been inconsistent in the information provided to her; and that it had claimed that the flooring of the neighbour’s property met building regulations without inspecting it.
The resident sought assistance from this Service and from her MP on 29 September 2022.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the noise experienced at her property.
On 2 December 2022, the landlord visited the neighbours. The landlord’s note of the visit recorded that they denied the allegations of causing noise. The landlord’s note records that all the furniture in the property had stoppers on and the table was never moved. Whilst at the property, the landlord heard an external noise causing a bit of vibration which the neighbours said was often heard. The landlord advised them at the visit that it would be taking no further action. The neighbours indicated that they would be prepared to meet with the resident to resolve the matter through mediation.
The landlord reported the outcome of its visit to the resident on 10 December 2022 and also to her MP.
Following a request from the resident’s MP on 19 December 2022 and intervention from this Service on 5 January 2023, the landlord provided an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint on 25 January 2023, with apologies that this had previously been overlooked.
The landlord sent the resident a holding response on 9 February 2023, indicating that it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. In the response:
1. The landlord referred to the resident’s complaint which it stated was received by it on 25 January 2023.
2. It reviewed the case records related to the resident’s reports of noise from 5 January 2022 up to its decision that the noise was deemed everyday household noise. It reiterated that no further action could be taken at this stage as everyday household noise was not deemed to be ASB.
3. It noted that the resident had sent a follow up email on 4 May 2022 regarding her query in relation to building regulations. The landlord could not see that any feedback was provided by the team.
4. It explained that the resident’s complaint dated 2 September 2022 had been referred to the ASB team to review as it was believed at the time that the case was still under review.
5. It recorded the visits made to the resident and her neighbour and the outcome as relayed to the resident on 10 December 2022. It stated that the only noise heard by it during this visit was that of building works which consisted of mainly hammering and drilling and that no other noise was reported.
6. With regard to the question of whether the flooring was compliant with building regulations, the landlord offered to carry out an acoustic test. It also advised that this test may reveal the identity of the resident to the neighbours which had not been previously been made known to them.
7. The resident was encouraged to consider mediation as a way of resolving the issue. Alternatively, she was encouraged to use the noise app as a form of documenting incidents as they occurred which would support her diary logs. She was encouraged to contact the local authority noise pollution team in respect of future incidents of noise so that an investigation could take place immediately, and the source identified, in preference to online reporting which could not provide this.
8. The landlord recognised the service failure in failing to raise the resident’s complaint when originally requested in September 2022 and offered £50 in vouchers by way of compensation.
On 28 February 2023, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated.
The resident chased the landlord for the Stage 2 response on 15 May 2023. She was advised by the landlord on 25 May 2023 that the case had been closed due to her indication that she intended to refer the matter to this Service.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 26 June 2023 that it had logged a formal Stage 2 case. It provided its Stage 2 response on 24 July 2023. In the response:
1. The landlord referred to and reiterated the content of its Stage 1 response.
2. It recognised that it had not responded to the resident’s enquiry as to whether the flooring met building regulations and apologised for this. It confirmed that the block was considered a new build and that it would have passed building regulation at the time of development/handover. As such, no subsequent acoustic testing would be carried out unless required. It stated that an offer of acoustic testing had been made and could be arranged.
3. With regard to the handling of the ASB case, it noted that the resident had previously been informed that the diary logs she provided of noise disturbances were insufficient to determine a statutory nuisance. It said it was unclear whether she had followed the steps required to substantiate the reports, for example, by reporting the noise to the noise pollution team so that they could be witnessed or by using the noise app.
4. It noted that the resident had not provided any suggestion or alternative approach which she wished to be considered or explored.
5. It had been unable to conclude poor handling of the resident’s ASB case and did not uphold this part of the complaint.
6. It acknowledged that there was a failure to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. It offered £50 compensation for its failure to escalate the complaint and any inconvenience caused as a result. It stated it was reviewing its internal complaint handling procedures and would use the failures identified to improve the services it offered.
Following comments received from the resident on 2 August 2023, the landlord accepted an additional failing in that the resident’s complaint had been made on 2 September 2022 and that there had been an oversight in dealing with the complaint at that stage. It apologised that these details were not included in the Stage 2 response and offered a further £25 voucher by way of compensation.
On 11 January 2024, the resident referred the complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance

It should be noted that in conducting this investigation, the Ombudsman has a specific role in investigating the landlord’s handling of the noise reports made by the resident, assessing whether the landlord responded to them in accordance with its legal obligations, policies and procedures and whether it took reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate or make determinations about the noise which occurred.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, reports of noise nuisance were dealt with under the landlord’s ASB policy. In it, ASB was described as including a wide range of unacceptable behaviour that affected the quality of life for residents or others living or working in the community.
The policy listed behaviours which were considered to be antisocial. This included noise, including excessive loud music, music played at unsociable hours, banging, shouting, and DIY at unsocial hours.
The policy stated that it would not normally consider behaviour which resulted from different lifestyles or may not be considered unreasonable by most people as antisocial behaviour. Noise reported in the first instance would not be regarded as ASB unless it fell within the range of behaviour which affected the quality of life for residents or others living or working in the community.
The actions which could be taken by the landlord in response to reports of ASB depended on the nature of what was reported. Possible actions were set out in the policy.
The landlord’s first record of noise reported by the resident against the neighbours was logged on 15 November 2021. It is not clear what action was taken by the landlord in response to this. This points to a failure of record keeping. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made below.
The resident subsequently made reports of noise from the neighbours which were received by the landlord on 5 and 6 January 2022. The procedure set out in the landlord’s ASB policy required the report to be logged; for the landlord to make clear from the outset what it regarded as ASB and what it did not; and for it to be clear what was within its power to do and what it would require to take any action.
The landlord logged the reports in its ASB records and responded to the resident on 24 January 2022. Although no set timescale is set out in the ASB policy for the landlord to respond to reports of ASB, it was appropriate in this instance for the landlord to apologise for the delay in responding which was in excess of 2 weeks. This was not a reasonable timescale in the context of the noise being experienced by the resident.
It was made clear by the landlord from the outset, in line with its policy, that it would not take action in respect of the noises of children or hoovering which it noted from the resident’s reports was not carried out in unsociable hours.
The landlord addressed the other elements of the noise being suffered by the resident by agreeing to contact the neighbours. This was, in the first instance, a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord in line with its policy.
It also recommended to the resident, as it did throughout its handling of this case, that she use the noise app to support the diary log and that she should report further loud music during unsociable hours to the local authority noise pollution team. This was appropriate advice.
The landlord reviewed its decision to take no further action in respect of the hoovering noise, in light of further information provided by the resident, which was reasonable. It followed the action agreed with the resident by sending the neighbours a warning letter on 16 February 2022, setting out the allegations of noise and reminding them of the relevant clauses of their tenancy agreement of which they might be in breach.
It appears that the landlord also took steps at this time to liaise with the neighbours. It agreed measures which they could take to reduce impact noise. This was a reasonable and resolution-focused approach.
The landlord provided an update by its letter to the resident dated 14 March 2022. In it, the landlord informed the resident that it would take no further action with regard to the wooden flooring. The reason for this decision appears to have been because the neighbours had its permission to install that flooring. This was not a reasonable decision for the landlord to take at this stage. The resident had made it clear to the landlord that the noise she experienced, such as hoovering, was heavily amplified due to the wooden flooring in the neighbour’s flat. While they had agreed to take steps to reduce the noise impact, the effect of these actions was not known. Further action to address the noise may have been appropriate, regardless of whether the landlord had consented to the wooden floor being laid.
The landlord also informed the resident that the hoovering was everyday household noise. This assessment was not consistent with the landlord’s earlier acceptance that the frequency of hoovering, combined by the effect of the wooden flooring, was a matter to be notified to the neighbours as a noise nuisance, as it had done in its warning letter of 16 February 2022.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord at this stage to leave open the possibility of reviewing whether the type of flooring the neighbours had installed was ‘suitable’, being a requirement under the terms of the lease, and/or whether further noise reducing action was required.
The landlord was notified by the resident in the communications which took place between 21 March and 20 April 2022 that the noise nuisance was continuing on a frequent basis. This was an indication that the measures taken by the neighbours had not been effective.
In light of this information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to revisit its earlier decisions and consider what further actions it could take. The ASB policy is not prescriptive as to what this action could have been, making it clear that this depends on the nature of what is reported. It could have included an inspection of the flooring in the neighbour’s property to ensure it had been installed to a good standard with adequate insulation, requesting rugs or carpets be used, or independent noise monitoring in light of the factual dispute as to the origin of the noise. The resident had indicated that she was not comfortable using the noise app but was content for the landlord to conduct its own assessment.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered these measures, or took further action, having concluded that this was everyday household noise.
In the event, the landlord did visit the resident and the neighbour’s properties. However, this was some 10 months after the resident’s noise report and after the resident had raised a formal complaint. The landlord concluded from the visit that no further action would be taken. It is not clear what investigations were conducted by the landlord at that visit to arrive at that conclusion, beyond noting the measures previously put in place by the neighbours which had had no effect on the noise experienced by the resident.
The landlord noted at this visit that there was vibration in the property and it is not clear what, if any, action was taken by the landlord to follow this up.
It is noted that the landlord offered as part of its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses to conduct an acoustic test. This was a positive proposal, albeit offered somewhat late in the day. It is not clear what consideration was given by the resident to it or whether this was discussed with her. Whilst it was not unreasonable for the landlord also to propose mediation in line with its policy, this was unlikely to resolve the issue while uncertainty remained as to the origin of the noise and the resident’s lack of confidence in the impartiality of the landlord.
In short, the landlord initially took steps to investigate the position and address the noise issues in line with its policy. However, when the noise continued to be reported, it failed to consider or take further action to address it which would have been appropriate. Whilst the landlord deemed the noise to fall short of the threshold for statutory noise nuisance, the incidences of noise were nevertheless frequent and ongoing, as evidenced by the resident’s diary log. They were evidently a cause of distress and nuisance to her. In the circumstances, this Service is not satisfied that the investigation into the noise reports went far enough. Accordingly an order has been made in this regard below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

There were a number of failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. In summary:
1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 September 2022. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, this should have been acknowledged by 9 September 2022 and a response provided by 23 September 2022.
2. The landlord wrongly directed the matter to the ASB team rather than dealing with it as a formal complaint which was an error of procedure. Consequently, the resident was required to seek the assistance of her MP and this Service before a Stage 1 response was provided on 23 February 2023. This was a delay of 5 months outside policy timescales.
3. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 as requested on 28 February 2023 and instead closed the case. It is understood that this was because the resident had indicated that she intended to bring her case to this Service. This was a failure of procedure in that the landlord should have acknowledged the request by 7 March 2023 and provided a Stage 2 response by 4 April 2023, notwithstanding the resident’s expressed intention to make a referral to this Service. The result was that the Stage 2 response was not provided until 24 July 2023, a delay of 16 weeks outside policy timescales.
4. In the Stage 2 response, the landlord wrongly referred to the complaint as having been made on 25 January 2023 albeit elsewhere in the response it was referred to correctly as having been brought on 2 September 2022. This caused concern to the resident.
The above were service failures by the landlord in the complaints process which caused delays in dealing with the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to pursue the landlord and get assistance from this Service in order to obtain a resolution.
In the landlord’s complaint responses at Stage 1 and Stage 2, and follow up letter of 2 August 2023, the landlord recognised its failures and sought to resolve this aspect of the complaint by apologising for them and offering redress. This comprised £50 in vouchers for its delay in responding to the complaint at Stage 1, £50 in vouchers for the delay in escalating the complaint at Stage 2 and £25 in vouchers for the oversight in its Stage 2 response. The landlord explained that it was reviewing its internal complaint handling processes and would use the failures identified to improve its services, demonstrating learning from the complaint.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the remedies guidance and, together with the apology and focus on learning, represents reasonable redress for the failures identified in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the additional service failures identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 for distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failures in responding to her reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to discuss any continued noise nuisance she may be experiencing.
2. Consider what actions it can take to address any continuing noise. This should include consideration of re-offering the acoustic test and/or any suitable noise monitoring options it can provide. The landlord should share the outcome of any tests with the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified person to inspect the suitability of the flooring in the neighbouring property. On receipt of the report, should any concerns arise, the landlord should consider options available to it. It should share its findings (where GDPR does not prohibit this) and any possible options with the resident.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £125 vouchers that it awarded for its complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in respect of complaint handling has been made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should review the ASB records in this case and identify any improvements in record keeping practices which can be made to ensure that all information is accurately captured.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendation made.