London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202320315)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320315

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 April 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 transference from other properties in the building.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since December 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor, flat and was built in 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
4. On 7 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report she could hear running water or a shower running from another property in the building. She said this could not be right and that it made her feel uncomfortable. She included videos in which the sound of water or a shower can be heard. She emailed it again on 27 March 2023 asking it to respond. The landlord replied the property had passed building regulations and would have been soundproofed to industry standards. It said some noise transference is normal. She replied to the landlord on 30 March 2023 and said she was not complaining about noise such as footsteps or talking but hearing water when her neighbours used their showers.
5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 24 May 2023. She asked if it had listened to the videos she had sent and said the noise was becoming unbearable. It replied that it had listened and could hear water perhaps hitting a shower tray. However, it said the building met industry standards for soundproofing as evidenced by her not being able to hear her neighbours talking or their televisions. It said she could contact her building guarantee provider, the National House Building Council (NHBC), if she thought the building had not been built correctly. On 27 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide building certificates and said she had contacted the NHBC. She chased the landlord 4 times between 9 June 2023 and 3 July 2023 for the certificates, which it provided on 4 July 2023. It also said it did not have a specific sound insulation test certificate and explained the limited use of sound testing when a building is built. It said this was limited to a sample of one or 2 properties, or when an issue was found during these tests.
6. On 14 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Its records say it recorded the complaint on 17 July 2023, but its response says it was made on 3 July 2023. The complaint was about:
   1. The resident had been trying to ask the landlord to resolve the noise issue since February 2023 but had been told it could not help her.
   2. She could hear water noise at all times of day and night in different parts of the property.
   3. She felt she was being “fobbed off” but said that if it could provide a sound test certificate, she would accept that she had to live with the noise.
7. In an internal email on 20 July 2023 the landlord said it would not receive sound testing certificates and that only a proportion of properties would be tested. It said typically this would be for new builds near busy roads or railway lines. The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response on 22 July 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 27 July 2023, in which it:
   1. Explained the building was outside of its warranty period.
   2. Said it had viewed the videos she had sent, and they appeared to record the sound of water hitting a shower tray or going down a communal pipe. It said this was normal and the building had passed building control.
   3. Said the original leaseholder, from whom the resident bought the property, had not reported a noise issue.
   4. Recommended the resident contact the NHBC.
8. The same day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She provided her reasons on 1 August 2023. She asked whether she had a NHBC or Local Authority Building Control (LABC) warranty. She also said she had not been sent a sound test certificate, and the landlord should not assume the building would pass one. She chased it 3 times for a response between 20 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023, in which it:
   1. Repeated its stage 1 response and said it was satisfied with this.
   2. Said it attached the sound test certificate the resident had requested.
   3. Confirmed her warranty was with LABC and that she could also pay for her own survey if she wished.
   4. Offered £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from other properties in the building

9. Under the lease the landlord covenants, or agrees, to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. The lease is silent on the issue of soundproofing. There is no suggestion of the noise being caused by anti-social behaviour (ASB), or by the actions of neighbours in the block. The landlord does not have a noise transference policy but has provided its ASB and good neighbour policies, which do not apply to the circumstances of this complaint.
10. Sound testing is governed by the Building Regulations 2010. Regulation 41 imposes a requirement for sound testing, as set out within Schedule 1 of the Regulations and Approved Document E. The regulations state that sound testing shall be carried out unless the new building consists of flats and ‘robust detailing’ has been used. Approved Document E defines robust detailing as “high performance separating wall and floor construction (with associated construction details) that are expected to be sufficiently reliable not to need the check provided by pre-completion testing”. The specifications for robust detailing are set out within Approved Document E.
11. When the resident reported being able to hear water noise the landlord said the building had passed building regulations, which was correct. As the property was out of its defects or warranty period, it correctly advised her to contact her building guarantee provider. However, it referred her to the incorrect provider which was a failing. The landlord correctly provided building certificates when the resident asked for these, however, delayed in doing so and had to be chased by the resident. It provided the building control certification and a copy of her LABC guarantee. It also explained it did not have a sound test certificate but failed to explain robust detailing at that time.
12. Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly confirmed the building had passed building control. However, it again referred the resident to the incorrect guarantee provider, although it corrected this within its stage 2 response. It also said it provided a copy of the sound test certificate with its stage 2 response. A copy of this has not been provided to this Service, but it is suspected that the landlord was referring to the robust detailing certificates it has provided. The landlord failed to explain the Building Regulations or Approved Document E to the resident. It did not explain what the robust detailing certificate meant or why a sound test had not been completed. If it had done so, this may have satisfied her complaint.
13. The landlord’s approach to the issue was reasonable. It was entitled to rely on the checks completed by building control and on the certificates it had. The property was outside of its defects and warranty period. As the resident is a leaseholder, it was correct for the landlord to refer her to her building guarantee provider. However, there were errors in and delays to its communication. In addition, it failed to explain what the certificates it provided meant, which it should have done to explain why there had not been a sound test. Due to these failings there was service failure. This caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

14. The landlord said, in its stage 1 response, that the resident raised her complaint on 3 July 2023. It acknowledged the complaint on 17 July 2023 and recorded it on its records the following day. This was outside of its 5 working day timeframe within its complaints policy. After being chased by the resident, it provided its stage 1 response 8 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. Or 18 working days after 3 July 2023 if that was the date she made her complaint. It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord complied with its 10-working day policy timeframe or not.
15. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord promptly acknowledged this. However, she had to chase it 3 times before it provided it stage 2 response. It did this after 39 working days, in breach of its 20-working day timeframe under its policy. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its response was delayed and offered £50 compensation. It failed to apologise for the delay but tried to justify it by saying it had been waiting for further information. Under its policy, and the Code, it could have instead asked for an extension of time, but it had failed to do so.
16. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not demonstrate regret for the delay, which it could have avoided by having asked for an extension. There was service failure, which caused additional time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 additional compensation to the resident.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from other properties in the building.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

19. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £150 compensation made up of:
       1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her reports of noise transference.
       2. £50 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

20. Although under no obligation to do so, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a sound test. If the results are that there is excessive noise transference, it is recommended that the landlord consider any measures it could take to reduce this noise transference.