Peabody Trust (202425654)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425654

Peabody Trust

25 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a request to install soundproofing measures to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a secured tenancy agreement, and they have done so since 2013. The property is a one-bedroom flat within a wider block. The resident has significant mental health conditions and an auto-immune disease, a family member has acted as their representative.
In August 2023 the resident’s representative requested that the landlord consider rehousing the resident on medical grounds. In this request they said the resident was experiencing stress from hearing day to day noise from their neighbours. They said the increased stress was negatively impacting the resident’s mental health conditions.
The resident’s representative previously brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about a pest infestation in the resident’s property. During the Ombudsman’s investigation the resident’s representative raised concerns about noise transference in the property and asked if soundproofing measures could be installed. The Ombudsman passed this onto the landlord to action on 25 April 2024 as it did not relate to the pest infestation. The landlord decided to handle the representatives concerns as a complaint.
In its stage one response dated 20 May 2024 the landlord said:
1. Concerns about noise from the resident’s neighbours had previously been raised to the landlord. As the resident was concerned about their safety and did not want their neighbour to know about the noise reports, a formal anti-social behaviour (ASB) case was not opened. This meant that the matter was not escalated.
2. Under its soundproofing processes it will only consider installing soundproofing measures after conducting an investigation. This is so it can first try to address any underlying issues.
3. As there had not been an investigation in this instance it could not install any soundproofing measures.
4. It apologised for its lack of investigation around the noise issues. It said even though the resident didn’t want their neighbour to be aware of the complaint it should have found a way to support the resident with discretion.
5. It had arranged for a its community safety team to call the resident’s representative to discuss the support it could provide the resident.
6. It offered the resident £300 in compensation for its failure to log the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance. This was broken down as £150 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £150 for their distress and inconvenience.
On 29 May 2024 the resident’s representative escalated their complaint as they were dissatisfied that the landlord had not committed to installing any soundproofing.
In its stage 2 response dated 11 July 2024 the landlord said:
1. The described noise did not meet the threshold of noise nuisance.
2. It asks tenants to respect each other’s lifestyles, and when clashes occur it encourages tenants to resolve disputes or engage in mediation.
3. For it to consider a request for soundproofing measures it requires:
  1. Completed diary sheets to understand the nature of the noise or if there are any patterns to the noise.
  2. Evidence from noise monitoring equipment to evidence the level of noise and the type of noise.
  3. Previous attempts to address any disputes between the parties.
4. It had spoken with the resident about the noise, but the resident didn’t want to engage with the neighbour, collate diary sheets or have noise monitoring equipment installed.
5. As it takes an evidence-based approach to noise nuisance it was challenging to identify a best approach.
6. Considering the challenges the resident was experiencing, it had arranged for a surveyor to visit the property to identify if soundproofing measures could be installed. A decision would be made following this assessment.
7. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for its delay in progressing the complaint to stage 2, and £25 for a failure to log the original noise report.
On 9 August 2024 the landlord told the resident that its previous offer of £300 compensation, made at stage one, had been withdrawn and replaced with the £75 offered at stage 2.
On 2 October 2024 the resident’s representative told us they were not satisfied that the landlord had not completed the soundproofing works, and that it had withdrawn its first offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request to install soundproofing measures to the property

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says the landlord encourages resident’s to respect other’s lifestyles when it comes to noise. The landlord acknowledges that low level and frequent noise can impact a person’s lifestyle. In such cases the landlord can remind residents of their responsibilities around noise, and if the behaviour continues this can be escalated.
If a resident makes a report of ASB the landlord will assess their risk and vulnerability to ensure it can provide the resident with the appropriate level of support.
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public services to provide reasonable adjustments to those who meet the requirements of nine protected characteristics. One of the nine protected characteristics is disability. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its policies and procedures.
The resident’s representative has told us that the shared wall in the resident’s living room is very thin, and noise from next door is audible in the resident’s property. The resident’s representative said when the resident is unwell the noise adds to their distress, and they find it hard to cope. They said the resident finds it hard to be in the property, and during noisy times they often have to sit in their bedroom with headphones in as a coping mechanism.
The representative told us that they are the resident’s carer, and they are elderly so they can find it challenging at times to manage and support the resident. The circumstances outlined should have indicated to the landlord that the resident and their representative likely required additional support. It is not evident whether the landlord considered or enquired as to whether any reasonable adjustments were necessary. Additionally, considering the content of its ASB policy, the landlord should have considered what proactive steps it could take to support the resident due to their vulnerabilities. It is not evident it did so.
After the landlord was notified of the concerns about noise nuisance in the property, it sought to understand the nature of the noise. This was appropriate. The resident’s representative said the noises included:
1. TV noise.
2. Day to day conversation.
3. DIY noise.
4. Occasional music.
5. Dogs barking.
The resident’s representative told the landlord that the resident did not want to cause any neighbourhood tensions, so they did not want their neighbours to know they had complained about noise. The landlord told the resident’s representative that it tackled noise nuisances via an evidence-based approach. It asked the resident’s representative if the resident could complete diary sheets or use noise monitoring equipment to evidence the noise.
The representative said due to the resident’s vulnerabilities they did not feel the resident could cope with this task. Upon learning this the landlord should have re-considered how it was handling the matter and acted in a flexible manner to meet the resident’s needs. This did not occur, which was a failing.
The noises described appear to be day to day noise which were audible due to the building fabric, as opposed to malicious or reckless noises made by the resident’s neighbours. Considering the nature of the resident’s reports the landlord should not have treated the matter as an ASB issue which required logging/investigating. It should have focused its investigations on noise transference, and the associated impact on the resident. The landlord should have fully considered the resident’s circumstances and thought about if conducting soundproofing works without the associated evidence might be a reasonable under its ASB policy considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
After it logged the complaint, the landlord had internal discussions about it putting together an action plan and a risk and vulnerability assessment for the resident. The Ombudsman has asked for copies of these documents. A risk and vulnerability assessment was not provided, and internal emails showed the landlord considered the situation to be suitable for its neighbourhood manager to monitor. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, this was inappropriate.
In its stage one response the landlord said there had been occasions where concerns about noise had been made, but the concerns had not been progressed as the resident didn’t want the matter escalated for safety reasons. The landlord apologised for this and said it should have found a way to support the resident with discretion. It was appropriate that it recognised its earlier failings considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and sought to address this going forward.
However, in its stage 2 response the landlord did not appear to accommodate for the resident’s vulnerabilities. It said that it had no evidence of a noise nuisance as the resident’s representative did not think diary sheets, noise monitoring equipment or speaking with neighbours was suitable. The landlord also cited the need for resident’s to be tolerant of one another’s lifestyles. This was unfair to the resident as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and their inability to cope with logging noise.
At stage one the landlord made an offer of £300 compensation. At stage 2 the landlord withdrew this offer. We will assess the reasonableness of this decision separately in our later analysis of the landlord’s complaints handling. In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to arranging for a surveyor to attend the property to see if soundproofing measures could be installed. It also offered the resident £25 in compensation for its failure to log previous noise reports.
A surveyor attended the property on 23 July 2024. They noted that soundproofing works were not needed as the correct evidence gathering procedure had not been conducted. This was inappropriate given the context of the resident’s circumstances. The surveyor was not there to assess or investigate the noise nuisance; they were supposed to be assessing if soundproofing could be installed.
While this case likely differed from the noise nuisance matters the landlord typically handles, the Ombudsman expects landlords to adapt their policies and processes to meet the needs of vulnerable residents. Upon learning of the resident’s additional needs, the landlord should have placed greater consideration on the ways it could adapt its services/standard procedures to meet their needs. For example, it could have instructed a noise expert, consulted with an occupational health specialist or conducted a decibel test.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord failed to adequately consider the resident’s additional needs and vulnerabilities.
2. The landlord failed to adequately consider the impact the noise transference had on the resident’s welfare.
Considering the finding of maladministration the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400. It is also to review its decision not to install soundproofing measures to the property in-light of the Ombudsman’s findings.
If the landlord determines that it cannot install sound proofing measures, then it is to review what steps it can take to meet the resident’s additional needs. This should include:
1. Considerations around liaising with the resident’s GP to understand their specific needs.
2. Considerations around obtaining an occupational health report and implementing applicable findings.
3. Considerations around the feasibility of re-housing the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will take into account a resident’s vulnerabilities when considering compensation. If a resident escalates their complaint to a stage 2, compensation offered at stage one will be re-considered. This could result in the compensation being increased or reduced.
The landlord did not provide all of its complaint responses in-line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. Its actions are summarised as follows:
1. The landlord provided its stage one response on 20 May 2024, this was 11 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was 1 working day outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s policy.
2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 12 working days after it was made. This was 7 working days outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s policy.
3. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 July 2024. This was 21 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was 1 working day outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s policy.
The delays outlined were not significant in length, and as such the inconvenience experienced would have been reduced. At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £50 for its complaint handling delays. The Ombudsman considers this offer to be reasonable and appropriate.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had re-considered its offer of compensation made at stage 1. Instead of the £300 it had previously offered the landlord said it was now only offering the resident £25 in compensation. While the landlord’s policy allows for compensation decreases at stage 2, it is reasonable for the landlord to consider whether doing so may act as a deterrent to resident’s who may be concerned that if they escalate their complaint any previous compensation offers might be withdrawn. As such, strong evidence should be required to justify such a decrease. In this case, the figure of £25 suggests not only that the investigation at stage 1 was not sufficient, but that the landlord did not appropriately consider the impact on the resident, or their vulnerabilities. This would likely have added to the distress the resident and their representative had already experienced from the complained of issues.
As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure and has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 in recognition of the distress experienced from the delays and the withdrawal of the stage 1 offer. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request to install soundproofing measures.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £550 to the resident. The previous offer of £75 compensation can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the request to install soundproofing measures.
2. £150 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s complaints handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to review its decision not to install soundproofing measures in the property. It is to outline its decision in writing, and supply this to the resident’s representative and the Ombudsman.
If the landlord determines that it cannot install sound proofing measures, then within 8 weeks of the determination it is to review what steps it can take to meet the resident’s additional needs. This should include:
1. Considerations around liaising with the resident’s GP to understand their specific needs.
2. Considerations around obtaining an occupational health report and implementing applicable findings.
3. Considerations around the feasibility of re-housing the resident.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 8 weeks of the determination date.