Thurrock Council (202417686)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417686

Thurrock Council

29 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
It is unclear when the resident first complained about noise to the landlord. The resident has told us it was in March 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 May 2024. She said:
1. Noise from the flat above was unbearable. She could hear people running after 10.30 pm, shouting, talking, scraping chairs and either the sound of music or a television.
2. The landlord had visited the neighbour above and there was no flooring covering laid. She thought this was a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy.
3. The noise reduced for a few days and then increased again. She said this was due to the property having no floor coverings.
4. The noise was causing upset to her child with sensory needs.
5. Following a conversation with the landlord, there had been confusion as to whether the resident had offered to pay for the neighbour’s flooring. She said she did not offer to do this.
6. That she wanted the noise to stop and for the landlord to assist the neighbour with installing carpet.
7. She wanted compensation for the level of noise due to there not being any flooring.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. It said:
1. It had visited the neighbour and discussed the noise and flooring issue.
2. The neighbour did not have wood flooring in their property. It had given the neighbour advice about the type of flooring they could have and where they could get support to purchase this.
3. It could not advise tenants on what standard of underlay or carpet they could have. It was down to the tenant’s own choosing and affordability.
4. It apologised if the conversation was misinterpreted and said it did not recall saying the resident should purchase the neighbour’s flooring.
5. The neighbour had children and some everyday living noise was to be expected. It told the resident that was different from a statutory noise nuisance. It provided the resident with details of how to report noise that is “more than everyday living noise”.
6. It did not uphold the complaint as it found no service failures.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 July 2024. She:
1. Told the landlord the noise was due to inadequate flooring.
2. Asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour again about installing carpet.
3. Said the noise was affecting her children’s wellbeing. Her daughter had autism, was sensitive to noise and was harming herself. Her other child was being woken up.
4. Said the neighbour was breaching their tenancy agreement.
5. Said the noise mainly happened between 7pm – 11pm.
6. Requested foam pads to be put under resident’s furniture while flooring was being arranged.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024. It said:
1. It could not give a timeframe for when flooring would be installed. It said it took a person centred approach.
2. The landlord visited the resident on 30 July 2024, completed a noise test and collected incident diary sheets. The landlord had written to the resident separately and advised the outcome.
3. The neighbour was willing to work with the landlord in “finding a resolution”.
4. It offered mediation between the resident and neighbour.
5. It did not uphold the complaint and did not find a service failure.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 2 August 2024. She wanted the landlord to enforce the neighbour’s tenancy agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 August 2024. At the time of its response, the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness we have considered events beyond the final response, as these are directly linked to the complaint and proposed resolution. We have therefore looked at events specifically up to 3 October 2024 to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour

We acknowledge that this situation was distressing for the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord had adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour web page states the landlord “can investigate cases of amplified sound but not general domestic living noise (i.e. noise from inadequate flooring, footsteps, children playing, conversations and washing machines)”.
The resident’s neighbour is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement states tenants must install and maintain appropriate noise reducing flooring such as carpet and underlay in their sitting room, bedrooms, hallway and stairs. Linoleum should be installed in kitchen, bathrooms and WCs unless the landlord provides written consent to do otherwise.
The resident has told us she first reported noise to her landlord in March 2024. We have not been provided a copy of the resident’s reports made before her formal complaint. We have seen evidence the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 24 April 2024 to discuss noise.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it appropriately updated the resident with actions it had taken. It also set the resident’s expectation that some everyday living noise was to be expected, and this was different to statutory noise nuisance. It gave the resident contact details to report “noise more than everyday living noise”.
The resident had been clear to the landlord in her initial complaint that she felt the noise was due to inadequate flooring. The landlord missed an opportunity in its stage 1 reply to provide an action plan. This was a missed opportunity to build trust and give her confidence that it was taking her issues seriously. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on the neighbour’s flooring on several occasions, adding to her distress.
From May 2024 – September 2024 the resident reported numerous incidents of noise to the landlord. This included hearing:
1. Running up and down.
2. Banging and stomping.
3. Items being dropped on the floor.
4. Scooters being used indoors.
5. Scraping of furniture.
6. Grinding noises.
On 19 June 2024 and 21 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had spoken to a Housing Officer 8 times between March and April. The noise was still ongoing and affecting her daughter who had autism. Her daughter was hitting and biting herself. Her son was being woken up and on one occasion noise was ongoing until 11 pm. She asked the landlord when it would be installing carpet.
The landlord responded on 28 June 2024. It:
1. Asked the resident to complete incident diary sheets to record the type of noise, how long and the impact on the resident.
2. Wanted to carry out a noise test at her property and asked the resident to contact the landlord to arrange.
3. Had visited the neighbour above and provided information where they can get financial support to get rugs or carpets. It would visit the neighbour again to see if the neighbour had been awarded funding.
4. Was unable to give a timeframe for installation of carpets but would work with the resident and neighbour.
It was positive for the landlord to consider options to investigate the noise however it then failed to provide incident diary sheets for nearly 3 weeks. The noise test took a month to be completed. From the evidence, the visit to the neighbour the landlord referenced took place on 24 April 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord had followed this up. The neighbour was then contacted by the landlord on 17 July 2024 and was asked to lay a rug. The time taken to make this request shows the landlord was not proactively working with the neighbour to resolve the issue. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord showed no urgency even though the resident had made it clear the affect the noise was having on her and her family.
Following a home visit to the resident and neighbour, the landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2024. It said:
1. It had reviewed the diary sheets and no enforcement action could be taken. The resident did not need to complete further diary sheets unless it was not every day living noise.
2. The neighbour was prepared to work with the landlord to install “noise insulation measures”. It would take a few weeks to resolve but would keep the resident updated.
3. It urged the resident to agree to formal mediation with the neighbour.
4. Said it was exploring options for:
  1. Soft pads to the neighbour’s wooden furniture legs to prevent scraping noises.
  2. Appropriate noise lining measures, for example padded lino flooring.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide feedback to the resident following its review of the incident diary sheets. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer mediation as this can be helpful in resolving differences between neighbours.
It was clear the resident felt unsure of what actions the landlord would take. In an email on 2 August 2024 the resident told the landlord that there was no end date for her and her children. She said she felt sick with dread and had spent 3 nights away from her home in the past 2 weeks due to the effect of the noise. The resident said the neighbour was breaching the tenancy agreement and her and her children had to suffer. The resident also raised concerns regarding the type of flooring that would be fitted and if it would be enough to reduce the noise. The resident told the landlord that she was offered mediation, but her mental and physical health was not good.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise (October 2022) recommends that, to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy. This should be distinct to the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. The landlord’s management of this case appeared confused as 6 days after telling the resident the noise was unenforceable and “everyday living”, it opened an ASB case.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to review the case and to set the resident’s expectations of actions the landlord could take. In its response, It saying it could not implement a timeframe did not reassure the resident that the landlord would proactively monitor the case. It also did not give an indication of when the landlord would update the resident further. It was inappropriate because it meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed and she was not assured of what action the landlord would be taking or when. We have seen evidence that the landlord had arranged for a surveyor to visit the neighbour to consider the possibility of sound proofing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to include this in the response, so the resident felt reassured that action was being taken.
The landlord reoffered mediation to the resident in its stage 2 response. The resident had previously not agreed to mediation and advised the landlord that her mental and physical health were not good. While it is appropriate for the resident to be assured that the option was still available, the landlord failed to recognise she might need support with the process. Throughout the case, the landlord failed to recognise that the impact on the resident was severe, regardless of the fact that it considered the noise reported to be general living noise.
The resident continued to report noise to the landlord following the final complaint response. She also chased the landlord for updates on the flooring numerous times. In emails to the landlord, she explained she was suffering with anxiety and depression due to the noise. Her daughter was harming herself, biting her hands, covering her ears and attempting to climb out of windows because of the noise. The resident made it clear that her and her family were struggling to live in their home. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s wellbeing concerns or considered making referrals to partner agencies to provide support to the family.
The landlord agreed to install cushioned flooring to the lounge and hallway of the neighbour’s property. We have seen evidence that the landlord provided the resident with updates regarding installation. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions asking what type of flooring and underlay would be installed but did not receive a response. In an internal email on 3 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged it had not answered the question. The landlord had no obligation to disclose this information however it may have been appropriate to do so, even if it only provided a partial response. It had previously told the resident what flooring options were being considered therefore then ignoring the resident’s concerns would have caused the resident frustration.
Cushioned flooring was installed at the neighbour’s property on 3 October 2024. It is appreciated the landlord would have had to take the neighbour’s circumstances into consideration however the landlord did not take a proactive approach. There was no active monitoring of the case or a clear action plan. By not doing so, this prolonged the distress caused to the resident.
The resident has told us that noise issues have been ongoing beyond the scope of our investigation. We have also seen evidence that the flooring laid on 3 October was removed and re-laid. We are unable to fully assess incidents after 3 October 2024 as the landlord has not had the opportunity to review and provide a response as part of its internal complaints process. The resident is able to pursue a further formal complaint with the landlord.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour. This is because
1. The landlord did not consider the resident’s mental health or the effect on her children, particularly her daughter who had autism. This included not completing a risk assessment or signposting to agencies for support.
2. The landlord prolonged the distress caused to the resident by not having a clear approach. It was not proactive and failing to provide the resident with a more specific action plan was unreasonable.
In the absence of the landlord’s compensation policy, our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It is ordered for the landlord to pay £500 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.
  1. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears
3. Provide evidence to us that it has complied with the above orders
Within 8 weeks of the report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the learning arising from this investigation and identify any areas for improvement in its services. There should be a specific focus on how the landlord manages noise complaints and considers residents with vulnerabilities. The landlord should draft a report and provide a copy of the report to us and the resident.