Peabody Trust (202313449)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313449

Peabody Trust

30 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 and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since March 2023 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
3. Between March 2022 and July 2023 the resident logged reports of ASB by his neighbours. He said the neighbours above him:
   1. Had laminate or wooden flooring (in breach of their tenancy agreement) which meant he could hear all their movements.
   2. Had damaged flooring which was amplifying everyday living noise to unacceptable levels.
   3. Shouted, sang, moved furniture, and played loud music and TV until the early hours of the morning.
   4. Were escalating their behaviour because he had reported them to the council and the landlord.
4. In July 2023 the resident contacted us saying the landlord was not acting and the ongoing situation was having an adverse effect on his health. He wanted it to repair the neighbours’ flooring. Following our intervention the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023 and said:
   1. The resident had made multiple reports of ASB about 3 neighbouring flats which it had investigated. It had found the reports to be household living noise.
   2. As the noise was taking place late at night, it had spoken with the neighbours and asked the noise to be kept to a minimum.
   3. It expected residents to be tolerant of noise in high density blocks that were older with less soundproofing.
   4. It had made efforts to resolve the noise complaints but could have done more than requesting diary sheets to investigate.
   5. It offered to install noise monitoring equipment for a week.
   6. It had identified service failings and offered £300 compensation (£200 for time spent chasing and reporting issues and £100 for its failure to manage the case more effectively).
5. The resident escalated his complaint via us on 28 September 2023 and said:
   1. He did not ask for compensation but for the flooring in his neighbours’ properties to be repaired.
   2. The flooring in his property had the same issue which the landlord repaired after he chased it for 4 months.
   3. His health was deteriorating as he was unable to sleep and he had even tried sleeping in the bathroom to escape the noise.
   4. His complaints were only about the 2 flats above the bedroom and the living room. He had previously told the landlord the third mentioned flat was not involved.
   5. He had spoken to both neighbours and they told him the landlord refused to repair the floor.
6. In its stage 2 response of 7 November 2023 the landlord said:
   1. The building was subdivided before building regulations about noise transmission came into force. Therefore, it was not obliged to carry out any soundproofing work, but it was committed to finding potential solutions for the situation.
   2. It would aim to work with the resident to implement measures such as soundproofing, insulation panels, and other noise reducing techniques.
   3. It regretted it had not effectively handled the situation before but was determined to find a resolution now. It would arrange a survey of the resident’s and his neighbours’ properties to conduct a thorough investigation of the sound insulation concerns raised.
   4. It would keep the complaint open until a reasonable and long-term solution was implemented. While it could not completely eliminate noise transference, it would address any identified structural issues.
   5. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its service failures and acknowledged it had not communicated effectively or provided timely updates.
   6. It had introduced new measures to improve housing and repairs services for residents. It offered a further £650 compensation (£400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £250 for its complaint handling).
7. The resident referred his complaint to us in December 2023, saying that the landlord had not carried out any of the actions promised in its stage 2 response. As a resolution to his complaint, he wanted the landlord to carry out repairs to the floors in the flats above to address the noise issue.

Assessment and findings

8. The resident told us that the matters complained of negatively affected his health. We do not doubt his comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration is given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
9. It is also not our role to establish the validity of the ASB reports made by the resident. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports to determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
10. The landlord accepted there were failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB/noise and associated complaint. It sincerely apologised, offered compensation, and set out actions it would take to resolve the reported issues. The question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out behaviour it considers to be antisocial and how it responds to reports. It does not consider everyday living noise as ASB, but loud music and excessive noise are classed as ASB. The landlord is expected to establish at first contact whether the reported behaviour is ASB or otherwise and advise the resident accordingly.
12. Where ASB is established, the policy requires the landlord to conduct a full risk assessment and a vulnerability assessment at the start, and then periodically thereafter. An action plan should be agreed within 5 working days. The policy says the landlord works with partner agencies like the local authority. The steps it can take to resolve reports include use of noise recording equipment or a noise app, interviews and visits, and mediation. The landlord is expected to record each report on its system along with details of the assessments, contact, action plans, and the resolution of each report.
13. The evidence does not show that the landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policy and procedure. We were not provided with any risk or vulnerability assessments. There is no evidence of the resident being signposted to a noise app, or that noise recording equipment was installed as offered. In fact, there is no record of the noise equipment being discussed again after it was mentioned in the stage 1 response.
14. The landlord received an email from the local authority’s noise and nuisance team in August 2023 following a visit by them to the property. The email said ‘the noise of occupants walking was clearly audible so much so that the ordinary living noises are exaggerated to an extent that may lead to noise nuisance. Conversation was not only audible but words were also discernible. Both airborne and impact noise transmission were evident and annoying, sufficient to wake from sleeping or prevent from going to sleep.’
15. The email went on to express concerns about the fire separation between the flats, and said the resident would like a health and safety assessment of the flats above his. Other than replying to this email to express its agreement with the council’s proposed visit, there is no evidence the landlord took any proactive action to address the concerns highlighted.
16. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would instruct a surveyor to investigate if there might be structural defects, and if so, address these. However, there is no evidence that such a survey was instructed. The evidence only shows it instructed its contractor to visit the neighbours’ properties to establish if the floors were carpeted. There is no evidence of it carrying out any further investigations or implementing measures to address the excessive noise.
17. The landlord told the resident and us that the properties in question were denying access. It further told us it was managing a no access case for one of the properties for a gas inspection. It felt access to inspect the flooring was doubtful until it gained access for the gas inspection. It said it had no other choice but to follow its access policy. However, when we requested the access policy it told us it did not have one and referred us to its repairs policy. It did not provide us a copy of its repairs policy applicable at the time. It is difficult then to say that it was managing the no access as it should.
18. Further, internal landlord emails exchanged in June 2024 say the property (refusing access) was electrical heating registered and there was no landlord gas safety record on the system. It is unclear then who, if anyone at all, was following the no access policy to obtain access to the property in question.
19. The evidence does not support that the landlord was doing everything it could to obtain access for the promised survey promptly (even with consideration of the neighbour’s circumstances). This delay was with the knowledge that the resident had raised health and safety concerns. He had also pointed out that, prior to repairs, he could see lights through his floor from the property below and he believed the floors above him had the same issue.
20. We asked the landlord to share details of the repair carried out on the floor in the resident’s property. In response, it referred us to evidence provided which related only to the flooring of the flats above. There was no information about the defect that the resident said was repaired within his property. There was also no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s assertion that the floors above had the same issue or responded with its position on this.
21. Further, the visit (that was supposed to be a full survey) to establish the type of flooring in the neighbouring properties did not take place until December 2024, over a year after the landlord’s stage 2 response. The member of staff that carried out the visit said they had received a few reports from other residents of noise from flats above or beside them. In their opinion, it was not an issue with an individual property but the entire block, and that ‘a detailed surveying is likely to be helpful’. There is no evidence of the landlord prioritising action in response to this.
22. The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord repeatedly and for months even after its stage 2 response without receiving a response or update. He was candid throughout about his frustration, distress, and the impact on his wellbeing and health with each contact. He even contacted his local MP in the hope this might prompt the landlord to resolve the situation. However, though his MP emailed the landlord on his behalf, this too did not achieve any positive results.
23. As of now, 3 years after the resident’s first report, there is still no evidence that a full structural survey has been completed, and the noise issue resolved. Survey appointments were booked for 25 March 2025, but the landlord has not confirmed if these took place or shared any reports (we invited an update in April 2025). There is no evidence of any meaningful substantial action taken by the landlord to reduce the noise transference, or to investigate it properly, as promised in its stage 2 response.
24. The landlord apologised, promised action, offered £950 compensation, and made internal changes as a learning from its failings in this case (in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes). However, it has not undertaken any of the promised action, acted reasonably and promptly in resolving the issue, or communicated effectively with the resident since.
25. The identified failures amount to maladministration and the landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident a further £800, in addition to the £950 previously offered, for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance. This is because there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. However, this sum also takes into account that the landlord did take steps to address its failures and offer some redress prior to our investigation.
26. The landlord is further ordered to share the survey reports it has obtained, if any, along with a time specific plan of actions it will take about any identified issues. If a full survey has not been conducted, it is ordered to arrange this. In light of the delays thus far, it should ensure it does this within the timeframe stipulated below.
27. We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2022, we published our Spotlight on complaints about noise. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to our remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in carrying out the promised action post–stage 2 response.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £800 compensation, in addition to the £950 previously offered.
    3. Carried out the full structural survey/s as promised.
    4. Shared its survey/s findings with the resident.
    5. Shared a time-specific plan of action for any identified issues with the resident.