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.

Peabody Trust (202323130)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323130

Peabody Trust

15 August 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:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since 1995. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour who lived above him was making a lot of noise. He said the transfer of noise was due to the neighbour having laminate flooring, which did not used to be there. He continued to complain throughout 2022 and 2023, asking the landlord to investigate. He said the banging and noise from above was affecting his mental health and daily life.
  3. The landlord asked the resident to keep diary sheets and spoke to the neighbour. The landlord said the noise was every day living noise such as children playing.
  4. Following our intervention, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 18 December 2023 and responded on 5 January 2024. It said the noise from above was considered normal and not a breach of tenancy. It said the case would be passed to the neighbourhood manager. It offered £60 compensation (£10 for poor complaint handling and £50 for time and trouble).
  5. The resident’s response to this was not treated as an escalation request until our further involvement on 21 February 2024. The landlord then acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 27 February 2024 and responded on 18 March 2024. It agreed there were service failures as some actions were not followed up. The landlord said the noise needed further investigation before any action was taken. It offered £410 compensation (£300 for time and trouble and £110 for complaint handling).
  6. In his referral to us the resident said he does not believe the neighbour should be allowed laminate flooring in an upstairs flat. His desired resolution is for this to be removed and the landlord to abide by its relevant policy.

Assessment and findings

Reports of noise nuisance

  1. On the landlord’s website and in its tenant improvement policy, it says laminate flooring is not permitted where there is a residential property below. The neighbour was in breach of this and it had a detrimental effect on the resident. The landlord did enquire with the neighbour whether they were permitted to have the flooring but there was no response. The landlord arranged a quote to have carpet fitted but there was no evidence of this being followed up. While the landlord attempted enquiries there was no meaningful action to address the fact the neighbour had laminate and should not have. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
  2. Through his numerous reports of noise nuisance, the resident repeatedly said the issue was the laminate flooring. He pleaded with the landlord to adhere to its own policy. It did not do so, which was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets. Initially, this was helpful to establish the cause of the noise. However, the landlord requested more and more of these which led the resident to feel he was ‘going around in circles.’ There was little progression in assisting the resident.
  4. The landlord said the noise was ordinary household living and not in breach of tenancy conditions. While this may have been the case, it did not address the fact the laminate flooring was the root cause of the disturbance. This was because the normal noise of neighbours walking and children playing was amplified to the resident below.
  5. The landlord knew the specific issue was laminate flooring as the resident had reported it multiple times. The landlord said in a letter to the neighbour that they must soundproof any hard flooring with rugs or carpets if it is causing a nuisance. It was very clear it was causing a nuisance but the landlord took no further action following this letter. This was unreasonable.
  6. The resident’s mental health worker contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the neighbour’s flooring and the impact it was having on the resident. The landlord still did not address the issue properly. This showed a lack of support or concern for the resident’s health and wellbeing.
  7. Records show the resident contacting the landlord in excess of 10 times about the same issue. He was repeatedly very clear the problem was the flooring. He explained how distressing the noise was and how it affected his sleep, daily life and mental health. The landlord dealt with each noise report as if it was an anti-social behaviour report (ASB). This led them to take no action and close the case multiple times as the noise did not meet the threshold for action. This was incorrect as the issue was not ASB but noise transfer through laminate flooring. The neighbour was in breach of policy and should not have had it. The landlord should have been firm in its application of the policy but it failed to do this.
  8. We published a Spotlight report on noise complaints in October 2022. In it we identified that noise transference was often the key issue. It was recognised that landlords could stop escalating noise complaints to ASB cases and focus more on prevention. In this case that would mean abiding by the landlord’s policy expressly prohibiting laminate flooring in these circumstances. The neighbour having carpeted flooring may mitigate much of the noise nuisance for the resident and should be explored.
  9. There were recommendations made in the Spotlight report. One of these was that new tenancy agreements for flats with other homes below should include a clause that hard flooring is not permitted. Where the flooring is already in place, permission for it should be rescinded if there are reports of noise nuisance.
  10. Given the amount of time and effort the resident spent without any progress, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled his reports of noise nuisance. It offered £300 compensation at stage 2. This is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord failing to implement its own policy.
  11. A sum of £500 compensation is ordered (inclusive of the £300 previously offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to put things right. It is more representative of the length of time the issue has caused stress and impacted the wellbeing of the resident. It also reflects the fact that the substantive issue remains ongoing.
  12. The landlord is also ordered to confirm its position about the neighbour having laminate flooring. This should be in writing and provided to the resident and us. It should include why the landlord has not taken action against the breach of policy and its plan of action to address this, including timescales.

Complaint handling

  1. At stage 1, the landlord failed to log a formal complaint until we prompted it to do so. The landlord’s complaint policy says a new or ongoing report of noise nuisance will not be handled through its complaint process. However the resident was very clear he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter, so a complaint should have been raised.
  2. The timeliness of the landlord’s stage 1 response was acceptable, after it logged the complaint. It said the noise from the neighbour was everyday living noise and not excessive. It said it would review concerns about laminate flooring, which was promising.
  3. Section 1 of the Complaint Handling Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.”
  4. The resident did not explicitly tell the landlord he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However he was clearly unhappy with the fact the neighbour still had laminate flooring and he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s action on this. While some efforts had been made to contact the neighbour, the landlord had not progressed the issue. The landlord should have raised a stage 2 complaint and failed to do so until prompted by us.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was within target timescales once it had been logged. However, the content was not particularly helpful to the resident. It encouraged him to keep making reports and return diary sheets. It did not address the issue of the laminate flooring or explain the landlord’s position on it.
  6. The fact the landlord failed to raise either stage of the complaint until told to by us amounts to maladministration. The lack of progress and meaningful action is linked to the substantive issue which had a detrimental effect on the resident. The landlord offered £110 compensation. This is not proportionate to the level of failure identified in this report or the impact on the resident. A sum of £300 is ordered in recognition of the detriment caused (inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence it has:
    1. Paid the resident £800 compensation (inclusive of the £410 previously offered), made up of:
      1. £500 for failures in handling the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
      2. £300 for complaint handling failures.
    2. Confirmed its position to the resident in writing about the neighbour having laminate flooring. This should include an action plan with timescales about how it is addressing this breach of policy.