Reading Borough Council (202230478)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230478

Reading Borough Council

27 March 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 its plans to soundproof the resident’s flat.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat within a block and there are people living in the flats above. The resident works night shifts and sleeps during the day.
3. The landlord’s records show that in February 2021 the resident reported that his sleep was being affected by squeaking noises he heard when the neighbour in the flat above walked on the floorboards. He complained about the landlord’s handling of the issue, and it responded on 25 November 2021. It said that in May 2021 it had inspected his flat, and the flat above, and established what works were required to reduce the noise. However, it could not say when it would start them, as it would need to find temporary housing for the residents in the affected flats and there was currently none available. 
4. On 3 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord again about its handling of the noise issues. We have not seen a copy of this complaint. The landlord responded on 3 April. It acknowledged that it had not yet been able to undertake the work due to problems with its resources, but it had recruited more staff to help resolve the delay. It apologised to the resident and said it would try to prioritise the work, but again did not give any timescales.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2023. He also contacted the Service for support. On 4 July we wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 8 August. It responded on 5 October.  
6. In its final complaint response, the landlord said the noise experienced by the resident appeared to be “general living noise”. However it suspected the noise was worsened in his flat because of a floating timber flooring that was “bouncing” when the resident in the flat above walked around. It said that it was reviewing options to resolve these issues, but it was complex because it involved gaining access to the flats above. It noted that the resident in the flat above would only give access on the condition that similar work was also done for his flat.
7. The landlord acknowledged its service had failed and explained again its resourcing issues. It apologised, and offered him £300 in compensation. It said that it had allocated the case to its management team and was “committed to finding a resolution to improve the situation, but we cannot guarantee that all noise will be eliminated as this is often impossible to achieve in flats”.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. He wanted the landlord to carry out the soundproofing to reduce the noise problems he was experiencing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident has complained about the landlord’s actions dating back to 2021 and he also made a formal complaint during this time. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint about issues which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Similarly, paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to our attention within 12 months of the landlord’s final complaint response. As such, this report will centre on the landlord’s handling of the soundproofing issue in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint in March 2023, and its responses to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of its plans to soundproof the resident’s flat

10. The landlord committed to carrying out works to reduce the resident’s noise problem in November 2021. However despite this, there is no evidence of it attempting to coordinate these works in a timely way. Nor is there evidence of it keeping the resident updated of its plans. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised this delay and its poor communication in its first complaint response in May 2023.
11. Within internal communications in May 2023 the landlord said that it had contacted the resident to explain its plans to start the works. It said that the “top flat” was due to be empty “in the coming months” so it could begin the sound insulation works. There is no evidence of whether this flat had later become vacant to allow works to go ahead. The landlord said it told the resident that it would still need to access the middle flat to carry out works. It estimated the works could be completed within the next 3 to 6 months.
12. The landlord recognised it had been unable to resolve the problem within its final complaint response. It apologised for its poor communications and for the inconvenience it had caused the resident, including its delayed complaint reply. It explained why the flooring situation was complex and complicated and said that it currently had a lack of survey staff which had caused delays. However, it committed to finding a solution which would at least reduce the noise impact on the resident. It apologised, and offered a total of £300 compensation.
13. The landlord’s remedies and compensation were reasonable in the circumstances, except that the resident had made clear he was seeking an actual resolution to the problem, and the landlord could not say how or when it could do so. The landlord’s explanation of the complexity of the problem is supported by the evidence, and its lack of certainty about the eventual outcome was understandable.
14. Nonetheless, apart from saying it would meet with the resident, the landlord gave no explanation about the steps it intended to take to resolve that uncertainty, or how it would ensure it did not repeat its previous poor communication with the resident. That was an important remedy which may have managed the resident’s expectations and given him a clear path forward, even if the final resolution was unknown. Not providing it mean the complaint was not fully resolved.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its plans to soundproof the resident’s flat.

Orders

16. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £500 to the resident in recognition of the failings identified in this report. This amount is inclusive of the £300 that it has already offered to the resident.
17. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an updated explanation on its considerations for addressing noise in his flat. It should explain what actions it has taken and will be taking, what decisions it has reached, or when it will make a decision about the resolution, and when it estimates it will be able to start whatever work it has decided on. It must also explain how it intends to keep the resident updated and informed of its progress and any changes to its plans.
18. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with these orders by their respective deadlines.