Salix Homes Limited (202441581)

Background

1. The resident had experienced issues with noise from a neighbouring property, which led to the installation of soundproofing. The resident continued to make noise reports and raised a complaint when the landlord closed its antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of noise reports.
3. We have also considered its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise reports.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s noise reports, in line with its ASB policy.
7. The landlord’s decision to close the ASB case was reasonable given the cause of the noise.
8. The landlord made reasonable proposals to reasonable proposals to reduce the problem.
9. The landlord provided complaint responses in line with the timeframes set out in its policy.

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.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

10. The resident had reported noise issues since her neighbour moved in during 2021. The reports were that the neighbour’s autistic child banged on the walls and floor at unsociable hours. Following the landlord’s investigation, it agreed to install soundproofing between the properties. It completed this work in November 2023.
11. The resident’s complaint was that noise continued to be a problem following the installation of the soundproofing. Given that the landlord made a material change to the property to reduce the noise, we consider it reasonable to assess the period following this change. Therefore, our investigation will focus on the period between the installation of the soundproofing and the end of the complaint process in March 2025.

What we have investigated

12. The landlord’s ASB policy says that after receiving a report of ASB it will initially interview both parties, carry out a risk assessment, and agree an action plan. The landlord should then gather evidence and take relevant action based on its findings, maintaining contact with the resident and keeping them updated.
13. Landlord records show that the resident continued to raise noise reports after the installation of the soundproofing but refused to provide diary evidence. The landlord offered to speak to the neighbour, but the resident asked it not to. The landlord explained that without evidence, such as the diary sheets, it would close the ASB case. As the landlord had installed soundproofing to reduce the reported noise, it was appropriate for the landlord to request new evidence.
14. In January 2024 the resident requested that the landlord leave the case open and gave permission for it to speak to her neighbour. The landlord then interviewed each party and carried out risk assessments for both. In line with its policy, the landlord took reasonable steps in agreeing actions with the neighbour to try and reduce any noise further.
15. The resident reported in February 2024 that the noise had continued. The landlord suggested it obtain further evidence with noise monitoring equipment. It explained that due to a lack of current availability of its equipment, this may take a while but suggested the resident make recordings on her phone, along with diary sheets. The landlord’s proposal was reasonable given the lack of available equipment.
16. The landlord remained in contact with the resident until April 2024 and made requests for evidence. The resident said that things had been better and the landlord closed the case after receiving no evidence of the noise. This was reasonable given the lack of evidence or new reports.
17. In October 2024 the resident applied for a management move and made new noise reports. The landlord provided diary sheets to record the noise reports, which was an appropriate way to gather evidence.
18. On 13 November 2024 the landlord approved the resident’s application for a management move. Given the ongoing issues, this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take in offering the resident a solution to the problem.
19. The landlord reviewed diary sheets in January 2025 and said it would close the ASB case. It said the noise was not ASB as it related to a neighbour’s medical condition. The landlord said it would continue to seek a suitable alternative home for her, following the agreement to offer a management move.
20. The landlord gave a detailed stage 1 complaint response that explained its decisions and offered to discuss any further support. It told the resident that she needed to report noise concerns to EH and explained how to do this. It also said it was discussing noise monitoring equipment and might consider further soundproofing depending on the results. This was a reasonable response because it set clear expectations and addressed the resident’s questions.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response said contact with EH had led to a meeting between them, the landlord and the neighbour. Following this, the neighbour agreed to an OT referral for support to reduce the noise. The landlord also said it would arrange a further risk assessment and continue with plans to install noise monitoring equipment and potentially, further soundproofing. The landlord’s actions and proposals were in line with its ASB policy and reasonable, given that the resident no longer wished to move.
22. The landlord did not install noise monitoring equipment until December 2025. The time taken to install this was unreasonable given that it proposed this action in March 2025. However, landlord records show that it did recommend that the resident used the local authority’s noise app while it was unable to provide the equipment. This was a reasonable alternative to gather evidence, while it awaited availability of the required equipment.
23. It is unclear whether the landlord received any recordings through the resident’s use of the noise app. However, it said that it reviewed recordings from two weeks in December 2025 and found no evidence of excessive noise from the neighbour.
24. The landlord made a reasonable attempt to reduce the noise by installing soundproofing. When the resident said that the noise continued, it took appropriate steps to investigate her reports. It interviewed the parties, completed risk assessments, proposed an action plan and asked the resident for further evidence. Having assessed the evidence the landlord explained why the noise did not meet its ASB threshold. It then made reasonable proposals, including a management move, contact with support agencies, and the possibility of further soundproofing.
25. In managing this process, the landlord set the resident’s expectations, maintaining regular communication and offered support throughout. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy throughout and its decision to close the ASB case was reasonable. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noise reports.
26. The resident recently informed us that the noise continues to be a problem. In view of this, we will recomend that the landlord contact the resident and advise of its current position regarding the issue and how it can investigate any further concerns she has.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
28. The landlord issued its stage 1 acknowledgement in line with the above policy on 23 January 2025, a holding letter was sent on 6 February and a full response issued on 7 February 2025. Its stage 2 complaint was acknowledged on 14 February 2025 with a final response issued in line with the above on 13 March 2025. The landlord responded appropriately and on time at both complaint stages.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping allowed a clear understanding of its ASB investigation.