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

Southwark Council (202342845)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342845

Southwark Council

14 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 that his neighbour’s home business was causing noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has lived in his 3 bedroom house since 1985. The landlord’s records show that the resident has mental health concerns.
  2. Between 2015 and 2022 the resident reported that his neighbour (Ms T) who lived above him was running a creche and that the noise from the children was disturbing him. The evidence available shows that the landlord did not consider that Ms T was running a creche at that time. During that period mediation was offered and Ms T signed a good neighbour agreement. The outcome of those interventions are unclear. There is no evidence that further reports about the noise were made after 2022 until the resident made a complaint on 27 February 2024.
  3. In his complaint, the resident said that Ms T was causing noise nuisance which was affecting his daily life. He said that this had been ongoing for 9 years and the landlord had not resolved the issue.
  4. On 29 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It asked the resident for further information about his concerns in order for it to investigate his complaint.
  5. On 5 March 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that about 5 children were being dropped off at Ms T’s home nearly every day and the noise from them was “loud”. He said that he was not happy with the landlord’s response and that the officer was “rude and not very nice”.
  6. In early April 2024 the landlord visited the resident’s building twice to investigate his concerns. It noted that it had listened for noise from the communal areas and did not identify any emanating from Ms T’s flat.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024. It said:
    1. the resident’s report from 2016 would not be considered due to the length of time that had passed. It had not received reports about the noise nuisance during the previous 12 months. It said that the resident should contact the noise team about any ongoing issues.
    2. it did not observe any noise issues when it visited Ms T in April 2024. It also did not consider that Ms T was running a creche.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concern that the noise issues have been longstanding, starting in 2015. The resident’s concern about this is noted. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 2024 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the residents’ complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident reports that his neighbour’s home business was causing a noise nuisance

  1. It is unclear whether the landlord has policies in place in relation to dealing with noise nuisance. In absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
  2. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether Ms T was running a creche or whether she was causing or responsible for noise nuisance. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
  3. Following his February 2024 complaint, the landlord appropriately asked the resident for further information so it could investigate his concerns. On 5 March 2024, the resident explained to the landlord that he believed that Ms T was running a creche. He said the noise from the children was disturbing him and was happening nearly every day. 
  4. However, there is no evidence that the landlord further investigated the resident’s concerns at that time. It was not until early April 2024 that it took further action to investigate the resident’s concerns. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one was unreasonable. The landlord’s delay to investigate in a timely manner meant that the resident’s concerns went unaddressed for a month. This caused him distress and inconvenience. There is also no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during this period. That was unreasonable, as the landlord should have taken care to ensure that the resident was kept updated.
  5. When the landlord investigated the matter in early April 2024, it visited the resident’s building twice. On both occasions it listened for noise coming from Ms T’s flat from the communal area. It reported that it did not hear any noise. It was reasonable to try to ascertain whether any noise could be heard emanating from Ms T’s property. However, the level of any noise heard coming from Ms T’s flat might have differed between someone listening from the communal hallway in comparison to being within a neighbouring property. It is unclear why the landlord did not visit the resident’s property to establish if any noise could be heard from inside his home. That it did not meant that it did not carry out a reasonable and meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. Therefore it has not satisfied itself or the Ombudsman that its investigations at this time were adequate.
  6. On one of the occasions the landlord visited Ms T and noted that she had 3 grandchildren with her and was “fairly quiet apart from the usual children playing with toys”. The Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report on noise stated that noise transference is often the key issue with noise complaints. While the noise was not deemed to be excessive, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have looked into potential causes of or contributory factors to the noise transference.  This could have included assessing the flooring, for example. There is no evidence that it did. That was unreasonable.  It is unclear whether the landlord took such steps when the resident had previously reported the issues. However, given the passage of time it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have looked into such matters at this time. This would have satisfied itself that it was working with accurate and up to date information.
  7. Also, the evidence shows that in 2018 Ms T did not have carpets in her flat. At the time the landlord was unable to fund the cost of installing some because it was “too expensive”.  Whether Ms T had carpets in April 2024 is unclear. However this should have reasonably formed part of the landlord’s investigation. Such updated information would reasonably informed what steps it could take to resolve the matter. There is no evidence that it did. The reason that it did not do so is unclear. Nonetheless, it was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord stated when it visited Ms T there were “no signs” that she was running a nursery.  Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered monitoring the matter to satisfy itself that that was the case.
  9. There is also no evidence that the landlord meaningfully discussed the resident’s concerns with him during this period. Not doing so meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to fully engage with him to ensure that it fully understood his concerns. If it had done so, it may have carried out a satisfactory investigation into the issues.
  10. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. Therefore the resident’s concerns were not adequately addressed. This caused him distress and inconvenience. Therefore we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his neighbour was running a business that was causing noise nuisance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
    1. it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
    2. it would not normally consider a complaint that is made more than 12 months “after the individual first became aware of the issue they want to complain about”.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response two days after the resident had made his complaint. Its response requested further information from the resident so it could investigate his complaint.
  3. The reason that it took this approach is unclear. The landlord should have asked the resident for further information as part of its investigation process, not as its response to his complaint. By taking this approach, the resident had to provide further information as part of his escalation request. That was unreasonable.  This caused him time, trouble and inconvenience which could reasonably have been avoidable if the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate his complaint at stage 1. In addition, it unreasonably delayed the landlord’s response to his complaint. This was not in accordance the Ombudsman’s March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that stated that complaints should always be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
  4. Also, the Code stated that in stage 1 responses, landlords must confirm details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer. The landlord did not include such information. While the reason that it did not is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 March 2024. The landlord issued its response on 26 April 2024. This was 11 days passed its 25 working days policy timescale.  That was a failing. The landlord stated in its acknowledgement letter that it would contact the resident if it was unable to meet its response deadline. There is no evidence that it did. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow through with its own commitment to keep the resident informed of any delays, that was unreasonable.
  6. As part of his escalated complaint, the resident provided reports from 2016 and 2017. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it was unable to investigate the resident’s noise reports from that time period. It said that it would investigate any reports received within the last 12 months. Given the length of time that had passed, the landlord’s position on the matter was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy.
  7. In his escalated complaint, the resident stated that an officer was” rude and not very nice”. It would have been challenging for the landlord to effectively investigate the resident’s concerns based on this information. In its response, the landlord referred to a telephone conversation between an officer and the resident in November 2023, where both parties stated that the other was “aggressive”.  However, given that there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint was in relation to this matter, it is unclear whether its response was addressing his concerns. The Code stated that if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought further information from the resident. There is no evidence that it did.  There is also no evidence that the landlord meaningfully investigated the matter. That was unreasonable and meant that the resident’s concerns may not have been satisfactorily addressed.
  8. Given the landlord’s failings in this case, we have found that there was maladministration in its complaint handling.
  9. On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his neighbour’s home business was causing a noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £350 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its the resident’s reports that his neighbour’s home business was causing a noise nuisance.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether the noise disturbance is ongoing. If it is it should take reasonable steps to investigate his concerns. In particular it should consider what steps it could take to reduce the noise transference with consideration of our spotlight report on noise.
    4. consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.