Southwark Council (202231578)

Background

1. The resident lives in a converted ground floor flat owned by the landlord. She has held this secure tenancy since 2005. Her complaint relates to reports of noise nuisance and ASB from the neighbour in the upstairs flat. She reported that the level of sound transference is excessive and has had a significant impact on her mental health. The landlord investigated the noise and concluded it was typical of everyday living and attributed it to poor sound insulation in the building. Dissatisfied with this response, the resident escalated her complaint to us for further investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of noise.
3. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

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

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

Summary of reasons

6. Noise – The landlord made positive attempts to resolve the noise disturbance through a range of measures that included visits to both parties, the offer of independent mediation, providing support services advice, and its engagement of a professional witness. However, it did not evidence it had conducted a risk assessment early on in the events in line with its ASB policy. It also did not evidence it had explored wider options to reduce the noise such as whether it was feasible to upgrade the noise insulation, and it failed to communicate the outcome of more recent actions with the resident.
7. Complaint handling – The landlord’s complaint handling complied with the Code.

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.

8. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure describes ASB to be nuisance and disorder that can make people’s lives miserable. It states that when it receives a report of ASB it will:
   1. Complete a risk assessment to prioritise the category of ASB, make contact with the resident and where there are vulnerabilities, make a safeguard referral.
   2. Take a victim-centered approach.
   3. Work in partnership with relevant agencies such as the police and council regulatory services.
   4. Use a range of appropriate and proportionate legal and non-legal remedies to address the nuisance such as mediation, acceptable neighbour and good neighbour contracts and referral to professional witness services.
9. The landlord does not have a dedicated noise nuisance policy. Instead, it assesses reports of noise under its ASB policy. While the Noise Act 1996 gives local councils the authority to take action where statutory noise nuisance is identified, the landlord itself is not responsible for enforcing this legislation. However, it does have a duty to work collaboratively with the council’s regulatory services to help address and resolve noise-related issues.
10. In assessing this case we have considered the landlord’s legal duties under the ASB Act 2003, its ASB policy and procedure and our Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 and Noise follow up report – 2024.
11. We expect landlords to take all complaints of nuisance seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner, aiming to resolve issues and keep complainants informed of developments.
12. To provide context, our investigation focuses on the period from 2022 to 2024. This timeframe reflects the landlord’s complaint handling timeline—from one year prior to the initial complaint through to the Stage 2 response issued in March 2024. Where relevant, we have also referred to events that occurred after the landlord’s complaints process concluded.
13. The landlord’s available records begin in March 2023, when the resident formally raised a complaint. Although the landlord refers to noise reports dating back to 2021—at which time it appears that it assessed the noise as domestic in nature—it has not provided any records covering the period from 2022 up to the complaint in March 2023. The resident, however, reports experiencing ongoing noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour over the past five years. It is unclear if the lack of records indicates a lack of reported issues during this time, or whether it suggests a landlord failure to retain records for this period.
14. When the resident raised her complaint in March 2023, the landlord issued a Stage 1 response later that month. As part of its response, it agreed an action plan with the resident, which included visiting both parties and carrying out noise transference assessments. We consider these initial steps to be appropriate in accordance with its ASB procedure.
15. In mid-April 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour. However, it confirmed that steps had been agreed with the neighbour in the upper flat to help reduce noise transference. This included laying rugs, avoiding dragging furniture and a bedtime routine for her child. The landlord also explored alternative solutions, including offering independent mediation and providing advice on rehousing options. We consider these actions to be appropriate in the circumstances.
16. There is a gap in the landlord’s records between April and August 2023. In August 2023, the landlord carried out a risk assessment to evaluate the impact of the ongoing noise issues on the resident, rating the risk as ‘medium’ in line with its ASB policy. While it was positive that a risk assessment was eventually completed, this took place 5 months after the resident first raised her complaint. Given that there was evidence of ongoing noise issues prior to the complaint, we would have expected the landlord to carry out and document a risk assessment much earlier in the timeline of events. The landlord’s ASB policy states that risk assessments should be conducted early in the process. There are no records confirming what, if any, safeguarding actions the landlord took at the time. The delay in completing the risk assessment, combined with the absence of documentation showing that safeguarding was considered, was therefore inappropriate
17. In January 2024 after the resident continued to report “constant noise,” the landlord appointed a professional witness to assess the situation. That same month, the resident escalated her complaint, stating that the ongoing disturbance was severely affecting her mental health. The landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response in March 2024, in which it did not uphold the complaint. However, it did signpost the resident to support services.
18. Our Spotlight report on noise (October 2022) recommended a number of landlord considerations. These included but are not limited to tenancy clauses for flats with homes below for hard flooring not to be permitted and net zero plans to include noise insulation. It also recommended that landlords should update their void standard to ensure properties have adequate insulation from transference of noise.
19. The resident informed the landlord that the upstairs neighbour had laminate flooring, which she believed was contributing to the noise transference. We have not seen the tenancy/lease agreement for the upper flat, so we cannot confirm whether it includes any restrictions on flooring types. However, there is evidence that the landlord took steps to reduce the impact of the noise caused by the type of floor such as asking the neighbour to lay rugs and avoid dragging furniture. While we consider these actions reasonable, it remains that the resident continues to report noise disturbance. We have therefore issued an order for the landlord to review the lease agreement for the upstairs property and determine whether further action is needed to address the flooring issue.
20. In conclusion, the landlord made various attempts to resolve the disturbance through a range of measures including:
    1. Visits to both parties.
    2. The offer of independent mediation.
    3. Engagement of a professional witness.
    4. Providing information on support services.
    5. Working in partnership with relevant services such as the council’s noise team.
21. Although the landlord concluded that the reported noise was domestic in nature, it acknowledged that the property has poor sound insulation. The landlord stated it has no legal obligation to install sound insulation. However, it was unable to confirm when the properties were converted, which is necessary to determine its legal responsibilities under Part E of the Building Regulations. We expect landlords to take suitable steps to ensure it is in compliance with Building Regulations. Consideration should also be given to our Spotlight reports on noise as previously discussed.
22. After the landlord’s complaints process concluded—and following a community trigger meeting—it agreed a number of actions with the resident, including regular contacts with her and checking the underlay in the upstairs flat. However, the resident has since informed us that she has not been updated on the outcome of these actions. This was inappropriate causing further distress to the resident. We have therefore included an order for the landlord to update her on the actions it committed to in January 2025.
23. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance at the property. Our orders reflect our findings and aim to put things right for the resident.

24. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord around 18 March 2023. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 21 March 2023, which was within the 10-working-day timeframe set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 January 2024, approximately 10 months after the initial Stage 1 response. The landlord issued several holding letters, explaining that it was unable to meet the 20-working-day response timeframe required by the Code .It issued its Stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. Although the response was delayed, the landlord-maintained communication with the resident throughout, in line with the Code’s expectations for keeping residents informed.
26. We are satisfied that the landlord complied with the Code. However, its final response referred to the Designated Person stage, which is outdated. The landlord should update its Stage 2 complaint response letters to ensure residents receive accurate and up-to-date information.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report: Knowledge and Information Management report (May 2023) for best practice on how it can learn from the failures identified within this report. In particular, emphasise should be placed on its audit of reports, events, and actions to satisfy itself and us that it meets its legal and policy requirements when dealing with noise nuisance.