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

London Borough of Camden Council (202406147)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406147

Camden Council

28 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 the resident’s reports of floorboard noise from the above property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat within a purpose-built block. The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair. The landlord records that the resident has post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions. The resident was supported in the pursual of her complaint by a representative.
  2. The resident reported excess noise from the flat above on 8 occasions in November 2020. The resident stated that the floorboards were loud, and it was impacting her sleep. The landlord closed the resident’s case file on 26 April 2021 because it had not received any further reports of noise.
  3. The resident reported the noise again in November 2021. The landlord spoke with the upstairs neighbour who stated they were aware of the noise and trying to minimise it, but the floorboards were loud. The landlord attended on 23 November 2021, it noted that when walking around the upstairs flat there was “creaking and cracking” heard in the resident’s property. The upstairs flat has carpet with thick underlay. The landlord noted that the flooring felt like it was sinking and was not secure.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 April 2022. They noted that the issue may be due to the flooring batons being too far apart and not being fixed to the floor correctly. The contractor stated a repair would be a “very large job”.
  5. The resident first complained on 27 July 2022. She was frustrated by the landlord’s lack of actions in relation to the noisy floor.
  6. The landlord responded on 10 August 2022 and noted a carpenter had inspected the floor in April 2022 and found it to be noisy. It said the matter had then been reviewed by a service manager who found the floor to be in a serviceable condition. It advised it would arrange a further inspection with the view to renew the worst impacted areas. On 24 August 2022, the landlord noted it was still deciding what to do about the floorboards.
  7. On 16 February 2023, the resident requested noise recording equipment and noted she would report the noise to the landlord whenever she heard it so that it could record its frequency.
  8. The resident made a further complaint on 22 March 2024 and 26 March 2024. The resident expressed frustration that the noise was ongoing and was disruptive. She noted that nothing had happened since her 2022 complaint and that the landlord’s communication had been poor. The landlord responded on 9 April 2024 and noted that the floor was in a serviceable condition so any works would be an improvement rather than a repair.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 April 2024 and reiterated that there was an “excessive bombardment of noise” and that the previous Housing Officer who visited her had agreed that the noise was not acceptable. The landlord responded on 14 May 2024 and again stated its position that the flooring was serviceable.
  10. After the resident had escalated the complaint to this Service, the landlord noted internally that the flooring was “rotting” and in need of immediate repair. The landlord carried out repair works in mid-2024, the resident noted this improved the level of noise initially but that it has worsened again by the time of this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  3. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the floorboards in the flat above

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it considers repairs to rotten flooring to be an urgent repair which should be completed within 5 working days. The landlord does not dispute that the floorboards in the flat above are noisy, and there is no suggestion that the upstairs neighbour is deliberately causing noise, or the noise was a result of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In cases concerning noise transference, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the levels of noise transference breached Building Regulations or any other standards, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to reports of issues with noise transference and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate in all the circumstances.
  3. When the resident first reported noise from the upstairs flooring, the landlord took no action. The evidence suggests that the resident reported noise on 8 occasions in 2020, but the landlord closed its case when the resident stopped reporting the noise.
  4. It is not always possible to eradicate noise transference between different floors of a property. However, steps may be taken to mitigate the level of noise transferred. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect landlords to investigate any such reports to identify if there is any damage and to consider what measures are likely to assist with reducing the level of noise.
  5. The upstairs property has thick carpet and underlay which the landlord noted was adequate. The landlord did not take steps to investigate if it could act further to mitigate the noise for the resident or the impact it was having, even though its own staff had accepted the noise was excessive. This was inappropriate because it led to the resident needing to expend time and effort reraising the issue.
  6. The landlord’s repair logs show that contractors noted that the noise may be caused by the flooring battens being too far apart or not fixed in place correctly and that it would be a “very large job” to complete. Internal correspondence from the landlord’s housing officer stated that the flooring was “severely rotten and required immediate repairs.” The landlord told the resident that the flooring was “serviceable”, and any works would be an improvement rather than a repair. The evidence provided, which the landlord had access to, suggests that the flooring was in need of urgent repair due to its condition. It was inappropriate for the landlord to say the flooring didn’t need repairing because this is not in line with the evidence provided. It is not evident if this was intentionally deceptive or a result of poor complaint investigation.
  7. The landlord did not demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously which was inappropriate. It was dismissive when the resident said that the noise was impacting her use and enjoyment of her home. The resident noted she was seeking professional help with her sleep due to the noise; however, the landlord failed to acknowledge this or offer support. When the resident requested noise recording equipment, there is no evidence the landlord responded. The resident also expressed frustration that contractors had turned up unannounced which caused confusion and distress, which the landlord did not address.
  8. The resident said she was distressed by the ongoing noise. She repeatedly told the landlord it was impacting her sleep, and that the situation was affecting her mental health. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to support or offer advice to the resident or be sympathetic about her situation. The resident is disabled and vulnerable, the landlord did not take this into account in its approach to the resident’s reports.
  9. The landlord did not keep the resident up to date with what action it was taking. The landlord assessed the floor on several occasions but did not follow up with the resident to outline its position and its reasoning. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who did not know what was happening. The resident also had to chase the landlord for updates.
  10. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge the impact on the resident. It listed other repairs it had attended in the property which were not relevant to the resident’s complaint. It did not offer any insight to explain its decisions or address the reported impact on the resident.
  11. It is concerning to note that the landlord changed its position on the floorboards after the resident had escalated her complaint to this Service. The landlord carried out repairs on the flooring in July or August 2024. This repair took place over 2 and a half years after the first recorded report of noise which is outside of the landlord’s repair time frames and is a failing.  While it is recognised that the landlord did take steps to resolve the matter, it did not do this until after the intervention of the Ombudsman which was inappropriate and resulted in the landlord missing the opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her complaint seriously.
  12. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the floorboards amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not act quickly enough to complete the repairs and was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about her wellbeing. The landlord stated the work required would be an improvement instead of a repair which was inappropriate because it was not consistent with the information the landlord was already aware of.
  13. The landlord has not outlined any reflections or learnings to make sure that the same failings do not happen again.
  14. The resident continues to report issues with the floorboards. It is not possible from the evidence available to determine the cause. The landlord should arrange a further inspection of the flooring and provide its position on any repairs to the resident.
  15. This service’s remedies guidance outlines how we assess compensation for maladministration. The resident has evidently taken a lot of time and trouble to raise this with the landlord over a significant period of time. The resident’s disability means there has been a greater impact on her, she has outlined that the noise stops her sleeping which had affected her health and caused distress. The landlord’s failure to act sooner also increased the distress because the resident had to experience the conditions for a longer period of time.
  16. This Service considers that £500 compensation is appropriate to acknowledge and redress the failings identified in this report, and the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy in place at the time of the complaints states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 25 working days of the acknowledgement.
  3. The resident’s first complaint was made on 27 July 2022 and the landlord responded on 10 August 2022 which is a period of 10 working days. The landlord sent a second stage 1 response for the same complaint on 24 August 2022. It is unclear why it provided a second response, and this was not in line with its complaints process. This would have caused confusion for the resident about whether she needed to pursue a stage 2 response, or whether she could refer her complaint to this Service.
  4. The resident made further complaints on 22 March 2024 and on 26 March 2024. The landlord responded on 9 April 2024, which was 11 working days later. While this was not consistent with the landlord’s policy, it is not evident it caused any significant detriment.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 April 2024 and the landlord responded on 14 May 2024, which was 16 working days later. This was within the landlord’s complaint time frames which was appropriate.
  6. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints which was inappropriate because it did not follow its own policy. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing whether her complaint had been received or when she would receive a response.
  7. In summary, the initial confusion caused by providing multiple stage 1 responses, along with the landlord’s failure to formally acknowledge the complaints, amounts to service failure because it did not follow its own policy. The landlord has not acknowledged this in its complaint responses or provided any reflection. This Service considers that £50 compensation to be reasonable to acknowledge the service failure identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the floorboards in the above property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £550. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £500 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the floorboards.
    2. £50 in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on any repairs still required in relation to the floorboards. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when any repairs will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks.