Sovereign Network Group (202442624)

Decision
Case ID	202442624
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. He had experienced ongoing noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above which he had repeatedly reported to the landlord. The resident has mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above.

4. The landlord did not carry out the repairs to the floorboards in a timely manner. There were delays in pursuing the neighbour for access. The landlord said it had exhausted its investigations despite the matter being unresolved. The resident had to contact environmental health before the landlord progressed the matters to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

 

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response or its stage 2 acknowledgement in line with its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for its failings.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 30 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 October 2023	The resident made a complaint about the ongoing noise nuisance he was experiencing from the floorboards in the property above. He explained to his landlord how the disruption caused by the noise was affecting his mental health.
14 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had applied to get funding to pay for his neighbour to have carpet fitted. The landlord said the decision on the funding had taken longer than anticipated so the matter had been escalated within the landlord. It said the carpet would now be paid for by the landlord and fitted in the new year. The landlord acknowledged that it had not kept the resident updated.
31 December 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the noise from the floorboards remained. The resident said the landlord had not been able to get access to the property above to carry out some work. He said the noise was affecting his mental health.
6 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it could have acted quicker in gaining access to the property above. The landlord said it had completed some repairs and laid new carpet at the property on 14 December 2024. It said there had been missed opportunities to complete the work sooner. The landlord said it was sorry for how this had affected the resident. It identified there had been complaint handling failures. The landlord awarded £400 compensation to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us in May 2025 that the noise from the floorboards remained. He said the work the landlord had carried out had not resolved the matter. The resident said the ongoing noise was significantly affecting his mental health.

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.

Complaint	Noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above
Finding	Service failure

6. During the escalation of his complaint, the resident told the landlord that he had been experiencing noise nuisance from the floorboards in the property above for 3 and a half years. The landlord said in its stage 2 response dated 6 February 2025 that the resident initially reported the matters in November 2020. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the length of time the noise nuisance from the floorboards had been ongoing.
7. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had raised an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the floorboards. However, it acknowledged that this may not have been the appropriate approach as it was noise relating to living rather than ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failing as this contributed to the delays the resident experienced in getting the problem with the floorboards resolved.
8. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that on 14 December 2024 the work had been carried out on the neighbour’s floorboards and new carpet laid. The work to the floorboards included screwing them down. However, this work had initially been identified by the landlord on 24 December 2021 after a visit to the neighbour’s property.
9. While the landlord had experienced problems getting access to the neighbour’s property, it was unreasonable for it to have taken 3 years for the work identified to be carried out. The resident had also been advised in the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 14 December 2023 that the neighbour’s new carpet was going to be fitted in the new year, but this was also delayed until exactly a year later on 14 December 2024.
10. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took the appropriate steps to gain access to the neighbour’s property when this was repeatedly denied. However, the landlord did not address the access issues in a timely manner which caused unnecessary delays to the resident receiving resolution to the noise nuisance.
11. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been missed opportunities in getting the work completed sooner than 14 December 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this.
12. During the stage 2 investigation the resident advised the landlord on 27 January 2025 that the noise from the floorboards was continuing. This was despite the work the landlord had carried out on 14 December 2024. Rather than carrying out a further inspection to attempt to resolve the matter, the landlord told the resident it had exhausted its investigations and referred the resident to environmental health.
13. On 13 October 2025 the landlord decanted the neighbour for 5 nights and carried out work to the floorboards in the property above. It was unclear what prompted the landlord to change its approach to the matter having previously told the resident it had exhausted its investigations. The resident told us that he had been supported by environmental health in getting the matters with the landlord progressed.
14. The landlord did not send us any communication or records relating to its interactions with environmental health. We did not receive any records from the landlord that showed how the matters had progressed from issuing its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025 denying the resident further assistance, to September 2025 when it was arranging the decant for the neighbour. This was not appropriate as these records would have been available at the time of submitting its evidence request to us on 15 October 2025.
15. As further work was carried out to the floorboards in the neighbour’s property in October 2025, it was unreasonable to tell the resident in its stage 2 response that it had exhausted its investigations. Clearly not everything that could have been done had been carried out during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This unreasonably delayed the resident receiving a resolution to the matter, which he had initially raised 5 years prior.
16. The resident repeatedly told the landlord about how the floorboard noise was affecting his mental health. The landlord responded appropriately when there were safeguarding concerns, and the resident had expressed distress. On one occasion this involved calling an ambulance for the resident. Knowing the impact the matters were having on the resident’s wellbeing, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have more closely inspected the floorboards rather than stating it had exhausted its investigations.
17. On 1 December 2025 the resident told us that the work the landlord carried out in October 2025 had resolved the noise coming from the floorboards in the property above.
18. While the landlord communicated well with the neighbour when it started to take steps to get access to the neighbour’s property, we have seen very little evidence of the resident being updated on the matters. The landlord acknowledged the resident was not kept updated in its stage 1 response. We have not seen that this was put right over the following 2 years of the complaint and the ongoing outstanding repair.
19. In its stage 2 response the landlord had awarded the resident £150 compensation for delays in completing the work and the impact this had on the resident. On 6 November 2025 the landlord awarded the resident a further £350 compensation. This was made up of £250 for the impact the further 8- month delay had caused the resident and £100 for the landlord not identifying the solution sooner. The resident has received this compensation. The landlord also said it was sorry for its failures.
20. While the total amount of £500 compensation awarded to the resident is in line with our remedies guidance, we have still made an adverse finding in line with our Scheme. This was because the matter was not resolved during the landlord’s complaints procedure, and the compensation was not made in the landlord’s final response.
21. It was only after the resident brought his case to us and pursued the matter with environmental health that the landlord resolved the noise with the floorboards and made an offer of compensation. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The resident made his complaint on 24 October 2023. The landlord is required to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, in line with its complaints policy and the Code. We have not seen any acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord stated it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days when it assessed its complaint handling in its stage 2 response.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. This was 37 working days after the resident made his complaint. This was considerably longer than the 5 working days for acknowledgement and the 10 working days for issuing a response stated in its policy and the Code.
24. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 December 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation until 27 January 2025. This was 18 working days later and exceeded the 5 working days stated in its policy and the Code.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025. This was 8 working days after its acknowledgement was issued. This was in line with its policy and Code which state a stage 2 response must be issued within 20 working days.
26. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 1 in its stage 1 response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right.
27. However, the landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures at both stage 1 and stage 2 in its stage 2 response. It apologised for these failings. The landlord stated it had failed to issue its stage 1 response and an acknowledgement to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 within the correct timeframes.
28. The landlord awarded the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures at stage 1 and stage 2. This was a proportionate amount of compensation, in line with our remedies guidance. We have found that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving its complaint handling failures.

Learning

29. We would encourage the landlord to see the person behind the repair. This would ensure that individual circumstances are adequately considered when making decisions about whether to conduct further investigations, especially when a resident is stating that matters have not been resolved by prior work.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We would advise the landlord to ensure that all key information is submitted to us for our investigations. Records or communications with external bodies such as environmental health should not be excluded from information submissions.

Communication

31. The landlord needs to proactively keep residents updated while organising access with neighbours on matters that affect them. In line with data protection, while it would not be appropriate to give details that are private and specific to other residents, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure affected residents are updated in a timely manner that is appropriate to the situation.