Southern Housing (202501349)

Background

1. The resident lives with his partner in a 1 bedroom first floor flat. In December 2023 he reported noise disturbance from the flat above and said this was affecting his mental health. The landlord issued the neighbour a written warning and they signed an acceptable behaviour agreement. The resident complained to us that the noise continued, but the landlord had not responded to further reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed conducting visits to investigate the noise reports. It should have attended both properties earlier given the adverse impact the resident reported.
7. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment in a timely manner or consider the impact of the noise on the resident throughout the complaints period.
8. There was poor communication by the landlord throughout its handling of the case.
9. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and it failed to follow up all the actions agreed at both stages of the complaints process accordingly.

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.

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.

10. It is stated in the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement that the landlord does not consider laminate or wooden flooring to be appropriate floor coverings. It further states the landlord would consider it a breach of their tenancy conditions if residents made such installations without permission.
11. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states it would follow its good neighbourhood management procedure (GNM) for issues such as noise reports, and it would let the resident know why it is using this approach.
12. Under this procedure the landlord would carry out a home visit to determine the acceptable level of noise between the properties and explore simple practical measures to reduce the impact of noise or get residents to sign a good neighbour agreement. The landlord would not usually complete a risk assessment matrix under the GNM, but it would discuss and agree actions that may help the resident resolve the issue
13. The resident said he had experienced noise for almost 3 years. Our investigation focusses on events that occurred from December 2023 that were also addressed under the landlord’s complaints procedure. We do not dispute the resident’s reports started earlier, but we have relied on the evidence available to set the scope of our investigation.
14. Following the resident’s noise report in December 2023 it was appropriate that the landlord provided him diary sheets and instructions for the noise app. This aligns with its ASB policy where it would try to measure the severity and intent of the issue and decide on the best approach to address the issue. However, the landlord failed to agree an action plan with the resident at an early stage when it decided the issue was not ASB.
15. The resident expressed frustration (over several months) that the noise app was not capturing the loud noise from the neighbour’s washing machine. The landlord advised him to contact his local council to investigate the noise independently. This indicates it was passing over the case to another organisation in its entirety. While local councils may have specific tools and powers in relation to noise, a joint collaborative approach would be reasonable in addressing such issues.
16. Despite the resident’s concerns that he could hear every movement in the flat above, the landlord delayed its investigation of the noise reports. Based on the evidence seen, it did not inspect the neighbour’s property until 28 June 2024. This was approximately 6 months after the resident initially reported the noise. An unreasonable delay given his reports about the adverse impact on his wellbeing.
17. It was appropriate the landlord considered measures to reduce noise transference from the neighbour’s flat. This included carpeting the property or installing thick underlay underneath the wooden flooring. The landlord updated the resident immediately after its visit on 28 June 2024. However, we have not seen evidence that it proactively followed up the matter with the neighbour or that it provided updates to the resident.
18. The landlord appeared to learn from it errors as it arranged professional witnessing in October 2024. Although the witness noted excessive noise from the above flat on 16 November 2024 the landlord delayed progressing the matter. While its stage 1 response advised that it would provide an update by 21 November 2024 the landlord failed to do so. This caused the resident additional frustration and distress. The landlord did not follow up its findings with the neighbour until 16 December 2024.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord warned the neighbour of the impact of the noise on other residents. It said it might take legal action in line with the tenancy agreement if their behaviour continued to impact other residents adversely. It also informed them it had arranged mediation so they could sign an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA). These were reasonable measures, in line with its GNM procedure.
20. In his stage 2 complaint the resident said the landlord had put him in a situation where he had to constantly confront his neighbour and that the issue was escalating. Although the landlord suggested mediation in April 2024 we have not seen evidence that it followed this up with both parties. This was not appropriate.
21. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had experienced difficulties contacting the neighbour and getting them to sign the ABA. It apologised to the resident for the failure to update him with the actions it was taking. The landlord said as the resident continued to experience noise after the neighbour had installed carpets, it would investigate further to determine if the flooring installed met the necessary standards. This was approximately 15 months after the resident initially reported noise transference. This was an unreasonable delay which caused him significant distress and inconvenience.
22. The resident said the landlord later attended the property with a surveyor, but we have not seen evidence of the dates of the visit/s or any record of its findings. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated it kept clear records of its management of this case.
23. The resident expressed in various emails between December 2023 and March 2025 that the issue was causing severe distress, sleep deprivation and a decline in his mental health. He described his experience as unbearable and torturous and said the issue had ruined his life. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a risk assessment at an earlier opportunity, given the concerns being expressed by the resident. The landlord said it had completed a risk assessment in June 2025 as it had created a separate ASB case to investigate other concerns.
24. We note from the evidence that the neighbour signed the ABA in May 2025 but the resident said this had not resolved the noise. He advised us the landlord had completed some repairs to a damaged section of the neighbour’s flooring after the complaints process. He said this had reduced some of the noise, but further works were still needed. According to the evidence, the landlord identified these repairs during its visit in June 2024 as part of the measures that could reduce noise transference. We have not been able to determine the dates the works were completed, from the limited evidence.
25. In summary the landlord did not follow its GNM policy correctly in its handling of the resident’s noise reports. This was due to a delay in investigating the noise, completing a risk assessment, its poor communication and failure to follow up actions agreed proactively.
26. The landlord awarded the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount does not reflect the overall impact of the failings identified. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to award an additional £525 for the inconvenience caused over approximately 15 months. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it needs further time to respond it would inform the resident.
28. The landlord promptly acknowledged the stage 1 complaint but there was a delay in providing the final response. It took approximately 19 working days to respond which was not in line with the timescales published in its complaints policy. While this is noted, the landlord followed its policy correctly in requesting additional time to respond to the complaint and it explained the reason for the delay. For best practice, it would have been reasonable to reference the delay in its response.
29. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within the required timescales. The landlord’s failure at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process to fully commit to the actions agreed. Due to this failure the resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 to address this.

Learning

30. The landlord should be clear with residents from the outset on how it intends to investigate noise complaints and any realistic actions it can take to resolve it. Failure to do so in a timely manner in this case caused the resident frustration.
31. The landlord identified in the complaint investigations that its communication with the resident fell below the expected standards.