Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202426113)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426113

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

14 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 14 March 2022. The resident is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Anxiety, sensitive hearing and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
  2. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The building was originally a house and was converted into 2 flats in 1980. The landlord owns the property above which is occupied by its tenant.
  3. On 8 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that the sound insulation was “poor.” They said they sent a report “well over a year ago” but never received a response. On 15 March the landlord replied and asked him to resend the report.
  4. On 29 May 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said it did not understand what he was asking for. He also felt its response “lacked empathy.”
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2024. It acknowledged there had been times when it “may have misunderstood” the resident’s request. It noted he had not provided the report when requested however, it apologised for any frustration caused. Furthermore, it acknowledged that had it visited the resident it may have been able to progress the matter sooner. It reiterated the need to see the resident’s report and agreed to visit on 5 July to carry out its own inspection and assess sound insulation. It acknowledged that the complaint was logged outside of its 5 working day target and offered £10 compensation.
  6. On 13 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that he had been using the Noise app which said his reports were “under investigation.” He was unhappy that the landlord had called him the previous day to advise the previous recordings were not sufficient and asked him to provide further reports.
  7. On 23 August 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. When the resident contacted it in March it failed to open a noise complaint and complete an action plan in line with its Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy.
    2. It tried to contact the resident in May to complete an action plan but was unable to do so. It meant it was also unable to obtain further details about the noise he was reporting.
    3. It left a voicemail for the resident advising him to contact the local authority’s environmental health team. It also advised it would consider the issue of sound proofing.
    4. It spoke to the resident on 12 July who was dissatisfied with the delay and requested that it review the noise recordings. Having reviewed recordings taken during April and May it asked him to continue to submit noise reports via the Noise app. It had also sent diary sheets as agreed.
    5. It acknowledged it could have provided clearer advice and support earlier in the process.
    6. The property did not need to comply with requirements set out in Approved Document Part E. This is because it came into effect on 1 July 2003, after the property was converted. It therefore would not install acoustic insulation at that time.
    7. It said it would review the case in September 2024 to review the outcome of the noise reports and consider next steps.
    8. It apologised for its failures and offered compensation comprised of:
      1. £150 for the inconvenience caused by communication problems and delays contacting the resident.
      2. £100 for the delay in agreeing an action plan in line with its ASB Policy.
      3. £50 for time and trouble in making the complaint.
      4. £10 for delays in its complaint handling.

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. On 6 October 2024 the resident contacted us to report that the noise disturbance was ongoing. He said he was unable to sleep in the bedroom but was able to sleep in the living room because no one slept in the room above. He wanted to be able to live in “peace and quiet.”
  2. An internal email dated 12 September 2024 chased a copy of the report from the inspection carried out on 5 July. The reply dated 19 September said that it was not required to carry out a noise report due to the age of the property.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2025 to set out its visit to him earlier that day. It confirmed that:
    1. Its position regarding sound proofing was unchanged.
    2. It would to speak to his neighbour about mediation and inspect their floor coverings.
    3. The resident should continue to submit reports using the Noise app.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.

 Response to reports of noise.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy says that reports of noise are likely to be classed as low risk and it will respond to them within 5 working days. When it opens an ASB case it will carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident. It will try to support and signpost residents including managing expectations and not making promises. It also confirms that noise generated from “everyday living” is unlikely to meet its definition of ASB.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints Report (October 2022) requires landlords to develop a strategy for handling non-statutory noise seriously, sensitively and proportionately. Furthermore, reports should be triaged to ensure the correct approach is applied to help manage expectations. This will avoid residents feeling like they are submitting evidence of noise “for no purpose.”
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will consider making discretionary payments for failures such as delays in providing its services.
  4. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 8 March 2024 the resident said he had a sent a report regarding the noise issue “well over a year ago” but nothing was done.
  5. In the landlord’s email to the resident of 15 March 2024 it asked him to send the “noise report.” However, in an internal email of the same day it said the report related to sound proofing. The landlord’s understanding of what the report contained to is unclear. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to clarify its content. This caused confusion and frustration for both parties which prevented the matter being progressed in a timely manner.
  6. Its internal email of 15 March 2024 confirmed that the noise reported was “day to day living noise” and was not ASB related. Having set out its position it failed to identify what steps it would take to investigate the noise complaint outside of its ASB policy. This would reasonably have included a risk assessment and action plan to inform its response.
  7. During April 2024, including 7 April, the resident submitted noise recordings taken on his phone through the Noise app. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the recordings. This was inappropriate because this would have shaped its response, if only to manage the resident’s expectations. That it did not do so compounded the resident’s frustration and further eroded the landlord/resident relationship.
  8. It subsequently failed to provide updates to the resident who was caused distress, time and trouble when he emailed the landlord to chase on 14 May 2024. On 20 May 2024 the landlord again asked the resident to provide a copy of his report. That it did so without having clarified the nature of the report or taking steps to investigate the noise issue was inappropriate.
  9. A further internal email dated 21 May 2024 once again said the noise was classed as day to day noise, not ASB. Also on 21 May the resident emailed the landlord to report that even with carpet and acoustic underlay installed above, you would still be able to “hear the person upstairs yawning.” The landlord replied on the same day to repeat its request for the report. On 22 May the resident emailed to say his email was the report and asked the landlord to “get on with it for goodness sake.”
  10. It is unclear why the landlord did not recognise there was a breakdown in communication and take steps to clarify the situation. This would have enabled it to decide how best to proceed for the benefit of both parties.
  11. The resident’s frustration about the landlord’s inaction in relation to his noise recordings was evident in his email to the landlord later that same day. He said he had downloaded the Noise app and submitted 10 recordings. He said the app showed his case was “under investigation” and asked the landlord to respond.
  12. The landlord replied on 22 May 2024 to say it had forwarded the Noise app recordings to the housing officer and asked them to provide an update. It asked the resident to clarify if the statement he made in his email of 21 May was the report he referred to and if so was that his opinion or the findings of an external contractor.
  13. An internal email, also dated 22 May 2024, sought confirmation of the type of flooring the resident above had put down in the property. It asked whether wooden flooring was permitted under the terms of their tenancy agreement. While this was positive it came late in the process.
  14. It is acknowledged that in his email to the landlord of 23 May 2024 the resident declined to provide a copy of the report and asked it to consider his own statement made in his email on 21 May 2024.
  15. On 24 May 2024 the landlord raised an ASB case and attempted to call the resident to complete a risk assessment and action plan. A risk assessment was completed that day. As set out above it concluded the noise was day to day noise which did not constitute ASB. Therefore it is unclear why it opened an ASB case instead of developing an action plan in line with a more appropriate process. To do so implied the noise was antisocial which did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations around its response.
  16. A file note dated 20 June 2024 confirmed there had been no update on the case since 24 May 2024. It said this was due to its restructure and there being no housing officer allocated to the property. That the landlord had not considered how it would provide an effective service to residents during a period of change was inappropriate.
  17. The landlord flagged the need to refer the resident to the Noise app, offer mediation and check if the upstairs neighbour could lay rugs. While this was positive, the resident was already using the Noise app and the consideration of mediation and rugs came late in the process.
  18. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 4 July 2024 appropriately acknowledged that it could have taken steps, such as visiting, to move things on sooner. However, it failed to consider offering compensation in line with its Compensation Policy which was inappropriate.
  19. An internal email dated 19 July 2024 noted there were no records of any recordings from the resident. This is at odds with the screenshots of the Noise app, which show he submitted at least 2 recordings on 7 April 2024, and its email of 22 May 2024 which said it had forwarded his recordings to the housing officer. This is a record keeping failure.
  20. An internal email dated 5 August stated the resident had said he was updating the Noise app but had been told the recordings were “insufficient.” The resident raised concerns about the ASB case because it was “going in circles.”
  21. A file note dated 23 August 2024 noted that the noise on the recordings was not excessive but was at “antisocial hours.” It suggested that its ‘money matters’ service may be able to assist the resident above to obtain carpet vouchers if necessary. While this was positive, its consideration of flooring in the property above came late in the process.
  22. As set out above, the landlord’s reasons for opening an ASB case were unclear. However, having done so it then failed to follow its ASB policy. Its stage 2 complaint response of 23 August 2024 appropriately acknowledged several failures.
  23. While this was positive it failed to manage the resident’s expectations around its response to noise complaints. This was compounded by its instruction to the resident to submit ongoing noise recordings and diary sheets. This is because there was no action plan setting out when it would review the evidence, how it would communicate the outcome to the resident and what response he might expect.
  24. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise was inconsistent. Its ASB Policy does not set out how it responds to noise reports that are not classed as ASB. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to have an alternative policy setting out its process in line with the recommendations of the spotlight report. This has been addressed in the orders below.

 Request for sound proofing.

  1. The resident’s email to the landlord of 8 March 2024 set out his concerns about the quality of the sound proofing. He was concerned about the structure of the property and the condition of the floorboards. He reiterated his concerns in a further email dated 15 March 2024. In an email to the landlord dated 21 May 2024 he said he was unable to use the bedroom due to noise from above.
  2. As set out above, the ongoing confusion about the resident’s report contributed to the landlord’s delay in considering the complaint. This included his request for sound proofing.
  3. In an email sent to the resident on 21 May 2024 the landlord queried whether the report was from an external contractor in relation to the noise issue. It also pointed out that it would not carry out works to the resident’s property because this was his responsibility under the terms of his lease.
  4. The resident replied on 23 May 2024 to say he was not requesting works be carried out to his property but that the landlord investigate the structure of the building and “poor acoustics.” On 24 May the landlord left a voicemail for the resident advising it would consider the request for sound proofing.
  5. It’s unclear what steps the landlord took to progress the matter following its call on 24 May 2024. However, a file note dated 21 June 2024 set out that its main issue was it chasing a noise report it did not have. It sent an internal email to request a visit be carried out to check sound insulation and investigate the resident’s concerns about the structure. While this was positive it was over 2 months after it was put on notice by the resident which was inappropriate.
  6. By the date of its stage 1 complaint response dated 4 July 2024 the landlord had failed to take any further action to investigate the resident’s concerns. Having accepted that the report it requested from the resident would not assist its investigation it decided to arrange to visit the property on 5 July 2024. Its response said it would carry out its own inspection “to determine if there is a lack of sound proofing in the structure.”
  7. We have not been provided with a ‘live’ file note from the visit on 5 July 2024. In its email to us dated 11 July 2025 the landlord confirmed there was no file note. This is a record keeping failure. Its stage 2 complaint response of 23 August 2024 confirmed only that the inspection took place. There were no details about what the inspection comprised of and what was discussed during the visit. Therefore, there is no evidence that it carried out its own inspection and assessment of the sound insulation. Considering its stage 1 complaint response of 4 July 2024 set out its commitment to do so as part of its complaint resolution this was inappropriate.
  8. The landlord’s statement in relation to Approved Document Part E was correct. Furthermore, landlords are not obliged to carry out improvements to bring properties up to current standards. However, the landlord should have considered and explained its position to the resident sooner to manage his expectations.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident £300 compensation for the failures it identified which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where failures had an adverse effect on the resident. However, the landlord did not identify learning from the complaint to identify all that had gone wrong and what it would do differently. Therefore, the offer of compensation does not prevent an adverse finding. On that basis its failures amount to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
    1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Confirm how it will assess any further reports submitted via the Noise app including timescales for its response.
  2. The landlord should provide a copy to the Ombudsman also within 4 weeks.
  3. The landlord should pay the resident the £300 it has offered if this has not already been paid.
  4. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review its existing ASB policy. It should consider if it adequately sets out its response to noise complaints. If not it should consider writing a policy on how it will respond to noise complaints. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.