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

London Borough of Newham (202218328)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218328

London Borough of Newham

11 June 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:
    1. Reports of noise from a neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in July 2021. The property is a 2–bedroom flat located on the second floor of a block. The resident’s complaint relates to noise nuisance from a neighbour (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’) in the form of late night banging and machine noise.
  2. On 20 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, reporting that she was experiencing “severe loud noises” such as drilling and banging on walls, particularly during antisocial hours. She also mentioned that she was unable to sleep and was suffering from dizziness due to sleep deprivation. The landlord responded at some point, but the details of its communication are unclear. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 March 2022, confirming that the noise was still ongoing.
  3. In March 2022, the resident and landlord continued their communication. Evidence indicates that the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) team provided the resident with a link to a noise app to help document the noise she was experiencing. The resident stated she had sent some recordings but found it “pointless”. She also mentioned that the noise app was incompatible with her old phone. The landlord responded that it would assist “in any way possible” and emphasised that it was the resident’s responsibility to report each noise incident. It advised her to use diary sheets to record the disturbances.
  4. On 4 April 2022, the resident submitted the completed diary sheets. The landlord stated that it would contact the neighbour to address the noise concerns. Around mid-April 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour about the noise issue. Its investigation concluded that the sounds were typical of normal living noise, and the landlord requested the neighbour to be more mindful. Additionally, the landlord asked the resident to provide details of any other neighbours who might also be affected by noise nuisance from the same neighbour.
  5. Due to delays caused by repair issues, noise monitoring equipment was installed in the resident’s property in July 2022. There is no further information available regarding the results of the recordings. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 October 2022 to report ongoing noise nuisance. Additional reports were made on 6 February 2023. In response, the landlord conducted a letter drop on 8 February 2023, informing residents that noise reports had been received and reminding everyone to be considerate of their neighbours.
  6. The evidence shows that the resident made noise recordings between 10 May and 19 May 2023. There is no further information available regarding the results of the recordings. Following contact from the resident, we contacted the landlord recommending it raise a formal complaint. The landlord raised a complaint for the resident on 19 June 2023.
  7. On 17 July 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and noted that she had previously reported issues in February 2023. The landlord stated that she had been advised to continue reporting noise through its online system or 24-hour contact centre. In 2023, 2 complaints were received, one in February and another in May which related to heavy machinery noise and banging. It went on to say that it required sufficient evidence to demonstrate noise nuisance, and since only 2 complaints had been received that year, it concluded that the issue could not be confirmed as persistent or causing ongoing distress. The resident was advised to keep reporting incidents with detailed information to assist further investigations.
  8. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2023. She said the noise was causing her “extreme distress” and she wanted the situation resolved. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 September 2023, summarising its understanding of the resident’s complaint. It noted that following the stage 1 response in July 2023, the resident had reported 25 noise incidents involving the neighbour. It clarified that a previous case from 2022 was closed due to no reports being received between June 2022 and February 2023.
  9. The landlord went on to describe the reported noises as often including vibrations, banging, and shouting, with occasional loud music. It said that, apart from the music, the noises were possibly due to poor sound insulation. The landlord emphasised the need for evidence to demonstrate the frequency, volume, and impact of the nuisance, and again encouraged the resident to keep a diary and use the noise app. It also offered to install noise monitoring equipment in her property. The landlord explained that if no evidence of a statutory nuisance was found, the case might be referred for an insulation test. Additionally, it offered to provide information to help the resident pursue her own actions. The complaint was not upheld, as the landlord stated that the investigation was conducted in accordance with its policy.

Events post complaint

  1. On 15 April 2024, the resident attended the landlord’s offices to report “whizzing noises” from the neighbour, which she believed were caused by an air conditioning unit. The landlord visited both the resident and the neighbour the same day. It confirmed that no air conditioning or similar devices had been installed in the neighbour’s flat. It also noted the presence of some “creaking sounds” coming from beneath the floorboards in the resident’s flat.
  2. In communication with this Service in June 2025, the resident stated that the noise persisted. She suggested that the creaking floorboards might be contributing to the “deliberate” noise made by the neighbour. She also mentioned that although some of the floorboards had been repaired, not all issues had been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult situation for the resident and recognise that the noise issues reported to the landlord have caused her distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of noise and ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for noise or ASB. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact she felt the situation had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

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

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that ASB can include noise nuisance. In instances of persistent noise, it will open a case and undertake an investigation, adopting an evidence-based approach. It says where evidence is gathered of persistent noise nuisance, formal enforcement action may be taken. Additionally, following a report it will write to the alleged perpetrator to issue an initial warning and advice on preventing further nuisance.
  2. The ASB policy goes on to say that the landlord uses a variety of tools to combat ASB, such as acceptable behaviour contracts, the noise app, noise monitoring machines, and warning letters. It encourages residents to report incidents promptly and provides guidance on documenting noise through diaries and recording devices.
  3. It is not always appropriate for landlords to apply their ASB policy in noise cases. This service’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the need for them to develop an approach to ensure a fair and reasonable response, particularly in those instances where the noise is non-statutory and not ASB.
  4. Much of the evidence in this investigation was provided by the resident, such as her emails to the landlord and its response. In this case, accurately establishing the sequence of events was challenging due to insufficient evidence from the landlord. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a complete record of the decisions made or the rationale behind them. While it appears that appropriate actions were taken in certain instances, it is essential for landlords to maintain clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to create a thorough audit trail. Without such documentation, especially when evidence is disputed, it may be difficult to confirm that specific actions occurred or that the landlord acted fairly and in accordance with its policies.
  5. The evidence indicates that the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions between 20 February and 19 March 2022. However, no evidence was provided by the landlord to demonstrate that it fully responded to the resident’s communications, which is inconsistent with its ASB policy response time of 5 working days. The resident acknowledged in her correspondence dated 18 March 2022 that the ASB officer had sent her a link to the noise app, which she felt was “pointless”. Nevertheless, due to insufficient evidence, we are unable to determine when this occurred. Providing the resident with details of the noise app was an appropriate step in the landlord’s investigation and aligned with its policy.
  6. Following the resident’s communication of 18 March 2022, the landlord responded 1 working day later asking her to instead complete diary sheets. This was a positive step in providing the resident with an alternative way of providing the necessary evidence.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident again on 30 March 2022, requesting her to return the diary sheets so it could “take the next course of action”. The resident returned the diary sheets on 4 April 2022, after which the landlord responded by stating it would send a warning letter to the neighbour. Around this time, the landlord also emailed the resident, informing her that it had spoken to the neighbour regarding the noise issue. Additionally, it requested details of other neighbours who might be experiencing noise disturbances from the same neighbour. While this was a positive step towards establishing whether other residents were affected, it was unfair to place the onus on the resident to provide this information. In such circumstances, we would expect the landlord to conduct a letter drop to local residents (or use another method of survey), encouraging them to contact the landlord if they were affected by noise nuisance.
  8. In April 2022, the landlord suggested the use of noise monitoring equipment. On 10 May 2022, it contacted the resident saying that it was still waiting for a machine to become available. It made further contact on 7 July 2022, explaining that a group of machines were sent away for repair and would be back shortly. This was an appropriate step by the landlord to keep the resident updated on the availability of the machines. It is good practice to keep residents updated, even when there is no new information.
  9. The evidence suggests that a noise monitoring machine was installed in the resident’s property from 13 to 21 July 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the property to capture the noise she was experiencing. This Service acknowledges that the delay in installing the equipment was outside of the landlord’s control, given it was sent away for repair to an external company. However, there was no evidence provided to this Service to confirm that the landlord analysed the recordings, which was not appropriate.
  10. The resident made a further report of noise nuisance on 3 October 2022, which the landlord apparently did not respond to. This was not appropriate, and contrary to its ASB policy which says reports will be responded to within 5 working days.
  11. The resident made another report of noise nuisance in 2023. The exact date of this is unclear. However, the landlord acknowledged the report on 6 February 2023. As a result it carried out a letter drop to local residents notifying them of reports that had been received. This was a prompt and appropriate response which was consistent with its ASB policy.
  12. The landlord provided this Service with evidence of noise recordings made by the resident between 10 and 19 May 2023. From the evidence provided, it is unclear what action the landlord took to address these reports. As previously mentioned, it is vital landlords keep clear and accurate records to demonstrate any action it has taken. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  13. The resident submitted a complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord wrote to her on 26 June 2023, detailing the actions taken following her noise reports. These included various measures outlined in its ASB policy. The landlord stated that noise monitoring equipment had been installed on 2 occasions, but it did not record any “significant noise”. The noise that was captured was considered to be typical everyday living noise, and the case was being closed. While providing this information was an appropriate step to clarify the landlord’s position, it was not appropriate to do so only after the resident had raised a formal complaint. Ideally, this step should have been taken earlier to help manage the resident’s expectations. If the landlord did indeed take this action sooner, there was no evidence provided to this Service to confirm it.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It said that the resident had made 2 noise reports in 2023, the first on 3 February and the second on 31 May 2023. It went on to explain that to prove noise nuisance, evidence needed to be gathered to demonstrate the level of noise and its impact on her wellbeing or the local community. As only 2 noise reports were submitted that year, it was unable to prove that the noise was persistent in nature and continued to cause distress. This explanation aligned with its ASB policy and was therefore appropriate. The stage 1 response will be covered in further detail in the complaint handling section of this report.
  15. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2023. She said that the noise was causing her distress and affecting her wellbeing. The landlord responded on 22 September 2023. It provided a lengthy response outlining its understanding of the complaint and the action it had taken. It went on to say that if it had the necessary evidence to meet the relevant tests for noise nuisance, then it would initiate enforcement action against the neighbour. Additionally, if it was unable to, or was unsatisfied that the noise was antisocial or a statutory nuisance, then it may refer the case to its housing department to conduct a sound insulation test. The response was appropriate, and resolution focused by the suggestion of a sound insulation test when all other options had been exhausted.
  16. Nevertheless, the response said that the landlord had not received any reports between June 2022 and February 2023, and thus the complaint was closed. However, evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident was in contact with the landlord regarding the noise issue in July 2022 when noise monitoring equipment was installed, and additionally on 3 October 2022 when she reported the neighbour causing her “so much distress with ASB”. Consequently, its response was not factually correct. The landlord would presumably have identified this had it fully investigated the complaint and kept accurate records.
  17. The case closure was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it can only take action where it has evidence to do so. If residents do not report further incidents of ASB or noise, after a 28–day period it will close the case. However, there was no evidence to show the resident was made aware of the case closure until after her formal complaint. The landlord should have discussed any ongoing concerns with the resident to demonstrate it was taking her reports seriously. It is good practice for landlords to use an ASB closure checklist to record what actions have been taken, to make sure every necessary action has taken place before closing a case.

Events post complaint

  1. On 15 April 2024, following contact from the resident regarding whizzing noises, which she believed were caused by an air conditioning unit, the landlord visited both the resident and the neighbour the same day. This was a prompt and appropriate response by the landlord and demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s report seriously. It was confirmed that no air conditioning or similar devices had been installed in the neighbour’s flat. The landlord also noted the presence of some “creaking sounds” coming from beneath the floorboards in the resident’s flat. It arranged for the floorboards to be “investigated and rectified”. The repair log shows that this was done on 28 June 2024. The was a positive a step taken by the landlord, and solution focused given the resident’s concerns that she felt the floorboard noise could have attributed to “deliberate noise” made by the neighbour.

Summary and conclusion

  1. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s noise reports demonstrated an approach that reasonably aligned with its ASB policy. It employed various tools such as diary sheets, noise monitoring equipment, and communication with neighbours to investigate and address the issues. Nevertheless, there were repeated failings identified in relation to record keeping and communication. For example, it did not evidence it responded to the resident’s reports of February 2022, or her contact from 3 October 2022. It said in its stage 2 response that there had been no noise reports between June 2022 and February 2023. This was despite a noise recording machine being installed in her property in July 2022. The resident had said multiple times that the situation was causing her distress, and the landlord’s lack of response on occasion was evidently frustrating for her. Insufficient documentation hindered our ability to verify certain actions taken by the landlord. Additionally, the case closure process lacked clear evidence that the resident was properly informed of the closure prior to her formal complaint.
  2. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour. As a result, £200 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for circumstances “where the delay and/or distress caused by the failure has an appreciable to significant effect” on a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses will be provided within 15-20 working days.
  2. On 19 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 26 June 2023 and indicated that a response would be provided by 17 July 2023. The stage 1 response was issued on 17 July 2023, which was 20 working days later. This exceeded the landlord’s policy timescale (and that set out in our Complaint Handling Code) by 10 working days. Although the policy states that this period may be extended up to 20 working days if a clear reason is provided within the initial 10 working days, the landlord did not offer any explanation for the delay. As a result, the response was issued outside of the policy’s specified timeframe, contrary to the complaint handling procedures.
  3. The stage 1 response also appeared to be rushed, did not fully address the resident’s concerns, and lacked empathy. It simply advised the landlord needed evidence to demonstrate the level of noise and its impact on her well-being. The resident had said in various communications with the landlord that the situation was causing her distress, and while it may not have been in a position to take any action, we consider it should have been more sympathetic in its correspondence to her.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 22 September 2023 and apologised that it had delayed in raising the complaint at stage 2. It said it would aim to provide a full response by 10 October 2023. The stage 2 response was in fact provided on 22 September 2023, the same day as the acknowledgement and deadline extension. While the response was provided within its policy timescale of 20 working days, the correspondence likely caused confusion to the resident.
  5. Overall, the landlord failed to adhere to its own policies and the Complaint Handling Code in responding promptly to the resident’s complaint. The delay in issuing the stage 1 response was unreasonable and contrary to policy, and although the stage 2 response was issued within the specified timescale, the overlapping communication and inconsistent dates likely caused unnecessary confusion for the resident.
  6. We therefore find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and £150 compensation has been awarded to her. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1.  Response to the resident’s reports of noise.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £350, made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience arising from its response to her reports of noise.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the complaint handling failures.
    3. Familiarise itself with this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints. As previously referenced, this offers insight and recommendations that would have been useful in this case, particularly around mediation, allocations, and flooring. The landlord should give consideration to producing a separate noise policy incorporating the recommendations in the spotlight report.
    4. Confirm in writing to this Service its thinking when considering the spotlight report’s recommendation and how this may look going forward in its service delivery.
    5. Contact the resident to ascertain if there are any further floorboards that are creaking and in need of being secured in place. 
    6. Carry out a sound insulation test and inform the resident of the result, including any decisions made in relation to this.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations. It should also consider arranging for relevant staff to complete this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM, if this has not been done recently.
    2. Considers implementing an ASB case closure checklist.