Havebury Homes — case 202504177

Decision Case ID 202504177 Decision type Investigation Landlord Havebury Homes Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 23 June 2026 Background The leaseholder purchased the property in 2019 and lives in a ground-floor flat with one property above. She reported concerns about noise transference, including everyday living noise, shortly after moving in and made a formal complaint in 2020. She continued to raise concerns and provide evidence of noise over time, and made a further complaint in 2025, including concerns about the structure of the joists and flooring above her ceiling.

What the complaint is about The leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Reports of noise transference. The complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise transference. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference The landlord failed to appropriately consider new information provided by the leaseholder, including reports of worsening noise and evidence suggesting a possible structural issue.

Despite being responsible for structural elements, such as the joists, it did not investigate whether some of the noise transference indicated a repair issue within its remit, instead relying on its previous position. The landlord’s handling of the complaint The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaints Handling Code, responding within the required timescales at both stages. It maintained timely communication throughout the process, and there is no evidence of service failure.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection, by a suitably qualified surveyor, of the joists and floorboards above the ceiling.

It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the joists and floorboards above the leaseholder’s ceiling and produces a written report that is shared with the leaseholder and this Service The survey report must set out: the condition and stability of the ceiling joists and floorboards whether the ceiling joints and/or floorboards require repair a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if a repair is needed) the likely timescales to commence and complete the works No later than 22 July 2026 2 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the leaseholder for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision and is meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 22 July 2026 3 Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of noise transference. This must be paid directly to the leaseholder by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 22 July 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord consider installing, or advising the neighbouring resident to use, an anti-vibration mat beneath the washing machine to help reduce the noise transmission between the properties. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 8 January 2025 The leaseholder raised a complaint. She said: she could hear even the slightest noise from the flat above and believed there was an issue with the structure of the joists and flooring above her ceiling movement in the upstairs flat caused walls to shake, and objects such as glass jars had fallen from shelves the landlord had not taken steps to address her concerns she did not accept the landlord’s explanation that the issue was due to the age of the building the issue was affecting her daily life and mental health she had been unable to sell the flat due to the noise transference she wanted the landlord to appoint an independent professional to investigate and carry out any necessary repairs, or to purchase the flat from her 22 January 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response.

It said: it found no evidence that it had failed to provide an appropriate service in response to the noise concerns in 2020, it had responded to a complaint about the building structure and considered whether it was required to undertake improvements it had determined it was not obligated to carry out enhancements the building continued to meet the standards expected for a property of its type and age the leaseholder could contact the Council’s environmental health department and said it would consider any recommendations made it was not able to purchase the property 4 February 2025 The leaseholder escalated her complaint.

She said: the complaint had not been handled independently or with an open mind the landlord had relied on previous information rather than considering current circumstances she had not been able to fully present her case during the stage 1 process as she was not expecting the telephone call from the complaints handler 25 February 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it considered the stage 1 response was reasonable and that the leaseholder had been given an opportunity to provide further information following the initial contact it acknowledged the leaseholder’s frustration about noise from the flat above but said it would not be reasonable or practical to carry out retrospective works, including soundproofing improvements it did not consider a third-party surveyor necessary at that stage but said it would liaise with any professional the leaseholder chose to hire it reiterated that it was unable to purchase the property Referral to the Ombudsman The leaseholder referred the complaint to this Service.

She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the matter investigated further. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The handling of reports of noise transference Finding Maladministration In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to and provided its response to a complaint from 2020 about noise transference.

The leaseholder had the opportunity to bring that complaint to this Service at the time and did not do so. This investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in the January 2025 complaint, although earlier events have been considered for context. There has been ongoing communication about noise transference since 2019. The landlord has consistently said the responsibility for improvements, including soundproofing, sits with the leaseholder under the terms of the lease, while it remains responsible for structural repairs to the building.

This is an accurate interpretation of the lease. The Council’s environmental health team has attended the property on several occasions and did not find a statutory noise nuisance. However, this does not remove the landlord’s responsibility to investigate potential structural repair issues under the lease. While making a formal complaint in January 2025, the leaseholder clarified that her concerns related to the structure of the flooring and joists in the flat above, which allowed her to hear everyday movement.

She said measures taken after the 2020 complaint, including carpeting, had not resolved the issue and that the noise had worsened over time, with shaking, creaking, and cracking sounds. In our view, the landlord did not demonstrate that it was open to this new information and instead continued to rely on its previous position without further investigation. The leaseholder described worsening conditions, which should have prompted the landlord to consider whether there was a structural issue within the scope of its repair responsibilities.

Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for structural elements, including joists and floorboards above the ceiling. By not reasonably investigating whether the reported noise indicated a structural defect, the landlord failed to consider a potential repair obligation and did not act in line with its responsibilities. This amounts to maladministration. In December 2025, after the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord inspected the property following concerns about the ceiling bowing.

The contractor identified a crack line and said there was a high likelihood that the joists might require reinforcement. This indicates that further investigation of the structural elements should have been undertaken earlier when the leaseholder first reported worsening conditions. Despite this, the landlord later told the leaseholder it would not carry out further inspection or works. This suggests there may have been confusion about its responsibility for the joists, despite the lease clearly assigning responsibility for these structural elements to the landlord.

We have ordered the landlord to inspect the joists and floorboards and provide both the leaseholder and this Service with the outcome of that inspection, including details of any required repairs and timescales. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance when there was a failure that the landlord has not acknowledged which has adversely affected the leaseholder.

During the complaint process, the Council’s environmental health team suggested that the landlord could advise the neighbour to place pads under the washing machine, but there is no evidence this was followed up. Our Spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the impact of sources such as washing machines and suggests the use of ant-vibration mats to reduce noise. While the landlord is not required to take this action, it would be good practice to consider such measures where appropriate.

We have therefore recommended that the landlord consider installing or advising the use of an anti-vibration mat under the neighbour’s washing machine. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s complaints policy say it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord responded at both stages of its complaints process within the required timescales.

As it acted in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code, we have found no maladministration. Learning The landlord relied on its historical position rather than fully considering the leaseholder’s updated reports that the situation had worsened. It could improve by reassessing cases when new information is provided, particularly where leaseholders describe a deterioration or provide supporting information. This case suggests possible confusion about responsibility for structural elements.

The landlord could improve internal consistency by ensuring staff clearly understand lease responsibilities, particularly in mixed tenure buildings. Knowledge information management (record keeping) We did not identify record keeping failures in this case. Communication The landlord communicated with the leaseholder promptly throughout the complaint process.