Newlon Housing Trust (202426546)

Background

1. The resident bought a new-build flat in February 2024. The building is located above underground track which branches off to a depot for underground trains. A series of rail joists which trains pass over between the depot and track cause noise and vibrations.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of noise and vibrations within the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of noise and vibrations within the property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise and vibrations within the property

4. The landlord missed opportunities to exhaust all options available to it to investigate and resolve the matter and to manage the resident’s expectations.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 acknowledgement in line with its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not address all the points the resident made in his complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident first reported the problems of the noise and vibrations when he moved into the property in February 2024. As this was a new build property there will have been warranties in place that may have been appropriate to consider the matters the resident raised.  We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered if these were appropriate.
7. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord arranged for a design, build and engineering contractor to attend the property to measure noise and vibration levels in the property.
8. The contractor’s monitors were set up in the evening of 19 March 2024 and collected data until the evening of 20 March 2024. A noise monitor was placed in the living room, and a vibration monitor was placed in the bedroom.
9. The contractor’s report that was issued in April 2024 stated that “it should be noted that while noise survey equipment was being set up, several rail pass-by events occurred which were clearly audible to survey staff”. The landlord did not refer to this in its complaint responses.
10. The contractor’s report said that as the structure-borne noise measurements were taken in the living room, which has a larger volume to the bedroom, it was “considered possible that noise levels could be slightly elevated in the bedroom in comparison to the measured levels”. It was unclear why both noise and vibration monitors were not set up in the same room to get a full picture of the disruption the resident was reporting.
11. It was identified by the noise assessments that levels were generally within the recommended range. However, it was noted that some events were above the recommended limit. The contractor’s report showed that these individual events occurred at times that the resident reported being woken up.
12. The vibration assessments identified that, when considered over the long-term, vibration levels appeared to be acceptable. However, the report commented that when assessed on individual events that the vibrations exceeded the threshold of acceptability. These individual events occurred at times that the resident reported being woken up, and it was these events the resident was complaining about, not disruption throughout the whole night.
13. The contractor’s report concluded there was a risk of potential adverse impact upon the resident, especially considering the timeframe and frequency of the events. It stated that some perceptible rail noise and vibration was being experienced by the resident especially when lying down on his bed.
14. It was recommended by the contractor that some “vibration isolating material” such as mats that go under treadmills were placed under the resident’s bed to reduce the overall vibration transmission.
15. The landlord agreed to provide this for the resident which was reasonable. However, this did not take place until 10 June 2024. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord to progress this matter.
16. We were unable to determine exactly how long the landlord took to install the matting. This was because the landlord did not provide us with the email from the contractor showing when the report was received, just the report dated April 2024. However, it would be reasonable to have expected this to have been carried out before 10 June 2024. It was also reasonable to conclude that this may have taken longer to complete if the resident had not been chasing the landlord to progress the matter.
17. On 17 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that the mats under the bed made no difference, and he was still being woken up at certain times of the night. He said the times of the disturbances coincided with when some underground trains were running to and from the depot. The resident told the landlord about the affect the continued disruptions from the underground trains were having on his wellbeing and ability to function in his employment.
18. The landlord replied to the resident on 19 June 2024 advising it was considering what action to suggest. It said it would get back to the resident. On 2 July 2024 the resident chased the landlord saying it had not replied to him. This was logged as the resident’s complaint.
19. In its stage 1 response issued on 30 July 2024, the landlord stated that the contractor’s report did not suggest any structural issues. However, the contractor was commissioned with the noise and vibration monitoring, not providing a report on how the structure of the building might be contributing to the problems.
20. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern about the beam. The resident’s lease states the landlord is responsible for the “load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building”. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the beam.
21. On 4 July 2024 the landlord offered to buy the resident a new mattress that absorbed movement. This was a reasonable offer. The resident accepted this offer on 4 July 2024 and confirmed his choice of mattress on 11 July 2024. He chased up the supply of the mattress twice. There was no evidence to confirm when the mattress was delivered.
22. When the new mattress did not resolve the problem, the resident escalated his complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the contractor’s report stated the vibration levels were below those considered to be excessive for habitation, so it was unable to provide further assistance. The landlord did not acknowledge that while average readings did not exceed acceptable levels, individual events did. It was these that the resident said were causing the disruption and waking him up.
23. The resident pursued the matter with the landlord. In October 2024 the landlord offered to install some dense underlay then an acoustic underlay on top, along with new carpet. It said this was its final offer.
24. The new underlay and carpet were fitted on 3 January 2025. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 January 2025 to ask if the new materials had improved the situation. The resident replied on 8 January 2025 saying there had been no improvement. He felt the problem had worsened. The resident repeated that he thought the problems were structural.
25. On 10 January 2025 the landlord said there were no more reasonable steps it could take to address the resident’s complaint. The resident replied on 11 January 2025 stating the beam in the property had not been investigated. He also said that when the monitoring had taken place that only the vibration monitor was set up in his bedroom. The resident requested another monitoring test and for the beam to be investigated.
26. The landlord continued to advise there was nothing further it could do. On 21 February 2025 the landlord said it had sent the contractor out “a few times” to the resident’s property. The evidence showed the contractor only attended the property once to carry out monitoring.
27. A landlord internal email dated 21 October 2024 referenced the option of carrying out further tests. However, the landlord has not provided us with full records to identify why it decided not to pursue this. Its internal email acknowledged that it needed to decide “fairly quickly” to avoid a maladministration finding.
28. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out another monitoring test to be able to conclude if the mitigations had made any improvements or whether the disruptions were worse, as the resident had stated. It could have asked the contractor if it had any further recommendations.
29. While it was noted that the landlord took some reasonable steps to try to mitigate the disruption the resident was experiencing, it did not exhaust all options as it repeatedly stated it had. This was a missed opportunity.
30. The landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. Its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses did not clearly identify where responsibilities for the matters and resolutions lay. This was another missed opportunity.
31. At stage 1 the landlord offered the resident a £25 compensation voucher for a late reply it had provided to an email which it stated was service failure. At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £200 to help with the costs of the sleep aids he had purchased. However, these awards did not address the failings identified above.
32. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £100 compensation are appropriate to put things right when there has been service failure.

33. The landlord’s complaint policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
34. The landlord issued its stage 1 response, escalation request acknowledgement and stage 2 response in line with the timescales in its complaints policy and the Code. However, the landlord did not issue an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint until 16 July 2024. This was 10 working days after the resident made his complaint on 2 July 2024 which exceeded the 5 working days stated in its complaints policy and the Code.
35. The stage 1 response said that its investigation had identified there had been one late response to an email, but it did not specify what email this referred to. From the evidence, it was reasonable to conclude that this was in relation to an email the resident sent and had to chase for the landlord’s reply, rather than in relation to the acknowledgement of his complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not address the delay in issuing its stage 1 acknowledgement which was a complaint handling failure.
36. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint, but the landlord did not do this. It did not address the resident’s point about the beam in his complaint. This was not in line with the Code.
37. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £100 compensation are appropriate to put things right when there has been service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

38. Our investigation found the landlord could have handled the issues better in this case. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds. This should help ensure future reports of problems in new build properties are managed effectively, in line with best practice.