We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Waverley Borough Council (202332453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332453

Waverley Borough Council

24 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority since 2004. She has lived in the property, a 1-bedroom bungalow since 2021. The landlord is aware the resident has difficulty in reading and writing. The resident has been represented by an advocate in the handling of her complaint. For ease, both the resident and her advocate are referred to interchangeably as ‘resident’ in this report. 
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that her next-door neighbour had been playing loud music in the early hours of the morning on 6 and 14 April 2023. 
  3. The resident reported noise nuisance via the local authority’s website on 10 May 2023. They said the noise was items hitting the wall, banging doors, music, screaming and shouting. The resident wanted the landlord to install noise monitoring equipment. It sent her an acknowledgement that said it would reply within 10 working days.
  4. The resident chased up a response from the landlord in July and August 2023. She was unhappy the landlord had not installed noise monitoring equipment in her home. The landlord treated that as a stage 2 complaint.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. It apologised that it had not been in contact as much as it would have liked. It assured the resident it was working hard to resolve the noise issues. It said it would arrange noise monitoring equipment to be installed in her home around October 2023 as she had told them she was busy before then. It agreed to keep the equipment in place for 2 weeks then analyse the recordings.
  6. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home on 28 September 2023 until 6 October 2023. It analysed the recordings later that month and did not identify any recordings of concern.
  7. The resident contacted us on 16 November 2023. She said she was unhappy that the noise from her neighbour continued to disturb her. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence provided shows that the resident first raised concerns about the noise from the same neighbour in 2022. The landlord arranged mediation in early 2023, but this did not resolve the issue. In the interest of fairness, this investigation focuses only on the period from April 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response and any assurances it made. This timeframe reflects the complaint the resident made to both the landlord and us. Earlier reports are not included, as the landlord did not have the chance to consider them during its internal complaint process.
  2. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. We cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.

Landlords handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says the landlord recognises ASB includes persistent noise nuisance. It gives examples as loud parties, shouting, noise from televisions, radios and burglar alarms. It also says where domestic noise is too loud or amplified, it may consider it ASB. It states that it could measure this via a noise app or with noise measuring equipment provided by its Environmental Health Team.
  2. After a report of ASB it says it will arrange a convenient time for an appointment to discuss the matters further and explain what support it can offer. It should complete an action plan with all complainants. It says it will use risk assessment tools to quickly identify the most vulnerable victims to ensure they receive a higher level of support.
  3. The landlord has not provided evidence it responded to the residents 2 reports of noise nuisance in April 2023. That was not appropriate and did not show it had considered its ASB policy.
  4. The local authority’s Environmental Health Team received the resident’s 10 May 2023 noise report. As the resident was a tenant of the local authority the email was forwarded to its Housing Team. The landlord did not notify the resident that it had received her noise complaint from environmental health. The automated response had told her she would be contacted within 10 working days but the landlord failed to follow that up. That left the resident uncertain of what action it was taking.
  5. The landlord recorded that they spoke to the resident in the street on 18 May 2023. She said noise from her neighbour remained an issue. There is no evidence that meeting was prearranged. The landlord did not show it was following its ASB policy. This is because it had not made an appointment with her to discuss her concerns. There is no evidence that it considered completing an action plan with the resident as its policy says it should. Its action was not appropriate.
  6. From the evidence provided it appears the landlord asked the resident to fill in diary sheets around this time. That showed it had not considered the difficulties she had with reading and writing. The landlord also asked its Environmental Health Team whether it could install noise monitoring equipment in her home. It refused and said she would need to install the noise app. Again, the landlord did not show it had considered her vulnerabilities as there is no evidence it explained to environmental health that using the app may be difficult for her. These failings could have been prevented had the landlord completed a risk assessment, in line with its policy, to better understand her circumstances.
  7. Although it did not notify the resident, the landlord did take some action. It conducted a joint visit with the police and spoke with a number of residents on the same street on 23 May 2023. None of whom reported any noise disturbances. While that action was reasonable and proportionate it did not show it was following its ASB policy when it did not update the resident.
  8. The resident provided completed diary sheets on 30 May 2023. Those prompted the landlord to approach environmental health to request noise monitoring equipment. This time it mentioned her vulnerabilities. Before it could install noise monitoring equipment it needed to write to the resident’s neighbour to notify them of the allegations. It sent that letter on 21 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated during that period. That was not reasonable and resulted in her chasing up a response in July 2023.
  9. The landlord went some way to putting things right in its complaint response. It was appropriate it apologised for its failure to keep the resident updated and agreed to install noise monitoring equipment. It was reasonable that it said it would install the equipment the following month as the resident had said she was busy in September. It was also appropriate that the landlord made a referral to its mental health team to see if it could provide additional support to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s complaint response did not consider the distress and inconvenience its failings had caused the resident. It missed an opportunity to apologise and put things right for its failure to consider her vulnerabilities. When it said the diary sheets did not provide sufficient detail it did not consider that the resident’s niece had filled them in, likely retrospectively. That could have affected the accuracy or level of detail provided. The landlord did not show it considered those circumstances when assessing the diary sheets. The landlord missed the opportunity to award the resident compensation to reflect those failings and the resultant delay in getting from her initial reports to installing noise monitoring equipment. It should also have completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident as part of its complaint response. This would have helped it to prevent the same communication failings happening again.
  11. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home on 28 September 2023. Its analysis of the recordings was not consistent with the resident’s diary sheets for the same period where she said there had been loud music. It did not identify any arguments, ASB, loud music or any other behaviour to be concerned about. So, although it would have been beneficial for it to keep the equipment in place for the 2 weeks it said it would on the balance of probabilities it is unlikely the extra 6 days would have produced a different outcome. It was not appropriate the landlord did not communicate the outcome of that analysis to the resident until February 2024. The early removal of the equipment and failure to communicate its findings left her uncertain as to whether the landlord had considered the recordings. It did not show it had learned from its previous failings.
  12. While the landlord investigated the noise complaint and was satisfied the resident’s neighbour was not causing a noise nuisance, its communication was poor throughout the complaint and after the stage 2 response. In not completing a risk assessment or action plan it did not show it was considering its ASB policy when handling the case. Its failure to consider her vulnerabilities also caused her further distress and inconvenience. For those reasons there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  13. Although the landlord’s compensation policy allows payments where service failure causes inconvenience, it does not set specific amounts. So, when considering an amount of compensation we have used our remedies guidance. The guidance suggests amounts of between £100 to £600 for a maladministration determination.
  14. In this case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion an amount of £300 is appropriate. That amount reflects the distress caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and communicate effectively. It also takes into account that the landlord did eventually review the noise recordings. While it delayed in communicating the outcome of that analysis to the resident there was no permanent harm because it did not consider any further action against the neighbour appropriate.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. While the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was non-statutory it provided landlords with best practice guidance. It stated that landlords should have a 2-stage complaints policy. Landlords should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. They should provide their stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord had a 2–stage complaints policy that was broadly in line with the Code with 2 minor differences. It said it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It would also respond to stage 2 complaints in 15 working days.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2023 the landlord decided to expedite her complaint to stage 2. Its reasons were that it had failed to respond to the reports of noise made in May 2023. That was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code as it should have raised a stage 1 complaint. It has also failed to show it acknowledged the complaint as it should have under its policy and the Code.
  3. Although the landlord bypassed stage 1 of its complaints policy, the impact to the resident was not long lasting because it provided its stage 2 response within 14 working days. It also took measures to progress its investigation into the noise reports. Its failure also allowed her to escalate her complaint to us sooner than if it had completed a stage 1 investigation.
  4. However, in only completing 1 stage it missed an opportunity to consider whether compensation was appropriate for its failings in its handling of her noise reports. The landlord also left the resident uncertain in not sending her an acknowledgement once it had decided to investigate her concerns as a stage 2 complaint. Further only sending 1 response to a complaint is unfair as it does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that might be new to the resident.  As the landlord did not show it was adhering to its own complaints policy or the Code there was maladministration in its complaint handling.
  5. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. That figure is in line with the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance.
  6. When the landlord responded to our evidence request it accepted it did not comply with the Code. Following the Code becoming statutory, it updated its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Code. Its policy specifies that all complaints must be investigated at stage 1. As the landlord is aware of its failing, we make no further orders relating to its complaints policy or further training.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. The landlord should pay the resident £450 compensation broken down as:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to update the resident and consider her vulnerabilities when managing her ASB case.
      2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
    3. The landlord should also meet with the resident to understand any ongoing issues she may have. It should explain its position on what it is and is not able to action, and if required create an action plan to address the reports with the resident.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider changing the automated reply it sends when noise complaints are made through the environmental health section of its website. It should explain that if the complainant is a tenant of the local authority the noise complaint will be passed to its Housing Team.