Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited — case 202403429

Decision Case ID 202403429 Decision type Investigation Landlord Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 18 May 2026 Background The resident lives in a first floor flat. She reported noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour. Whilst the neighbour has since left the building, the resident is dissatisfied with how the landlord responded to her concerns. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found there was: No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of noise nuisance The landlord investigated and responded to the reports of noise nuisance appropriately and in line with its policy. Complaint handling The landlord issued its stage 2 response outside of the timescales of its complaint policy.

It failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delay. 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 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 15 June 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 January 2024 The resident raised a complaint as she was unhappy that the landlord classed the noise she was experiencing as ‘general living noise’.

She wanted to challenge the decision as she was struggling to cope. 30 January 2024 The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response which said: It was sorry to hear that the noise was having a negative impact on her mental wellbeing. It found the noise clips were not antisocial due to their time and level of noise. It had also sent 2 antisocial behaviour (ASB) officers to her property to hear the noise first hand. The noise was barely audible in the voice clips and home visit, and it considered it was general living noise.

However, the ASB officers did speak with the neighbour and made them aware of the noise and asked that they be mindful. They also advised the neighbour to purchase a rubber mat to use whilst preparing tobacco. It was satisfied with the decision made by the ASB officers based on the evidence on the case and so did not uphold the complaint. It offered the resident mediation service. 5 March 2024 The resident escalated the complaint as she felt that the landlord incorrectly closed her noise nuisance complaint.

She considered that the noise constituted as a ‘statutory nuisance.’ 12 April 2024 The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response which said: It had met with the resident to better understand her situation. The levels of noise did not fall under the definition of statutory nuisance. The rationale for this was that the recorded noises quality as typical sounds of daily life. Factors for this include the volume and duration of the noise, its intrusion, frequency, location, timings, persistence and intentionality.

It acknowledged the presence of thudding, but the level of noise was minimal and the length of time it went on for was not a statutory nuisance. All noises ceased by 20:20 as explained by the resident. After reviewing the timeline of events and actions taken by the community safeguarding team, it maintained the stance that it did not incorrectly close the case. The original noise recordings were sent between 27 December 2023 – 8 January 2024. It investigated them on 10 January 2024, and it advised the resident it constituted the noise as general.

It would generally close cases in this instance, however, following discussions with the resident, it further investigated and visited her properly on 16 January 2024. It heard the noise first hand which lasted 15- 30 seconds. The team also visited the neighbour and proposed solutions such as laying down rubber mats on the ground to reduce noise transmission. Whilst it empathised with the resident’s situation, it did not uphold the complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred the complaint to us as whilst the neighbour no longer lives at the property, she was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with the noise complaint and the impact it had on her mental health.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance Finding No maladministration The resident told us that the situation has been the cause of stress.

It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not investigated this further. In the event that we identify failings on behalf of a landlord, we can decide whether it should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s ASB and nuisance behaviour policy states that it will investigate reports of frequent loud noise and shouting. But will not investigate reports of infrequent noise, lifestyle or personal differences and noise caused by typical day to day activities. Following a report of nuisance behaviour, the landlord will initially contact the complainant within 5 working days. It aims to carry out an investigation plan within a month, where it will decide if it should close the case or involve legal enforcement.

Our role in investigating noise complaints is not to assess what action should be taken regarding noise. Instead, it is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the report is in line with its policy. We also assess whether the landlord has taken proportionate steps to investigate the reports, consider what can be done to reduce the impact of any noise transference. The resident reported noise nuisance on 7 January 2024, describing banging noises from the flat above. She said she worked and studied from home and the noise was having a negative impact on her.

She had previously sent the landlord some noise recordings. The landlord responded on 10 January 2024, within its 5-day working timescale. It explained that having listened to the recordings, it would not take any action as the noise constituted as general living noise between the hours of 8am and 8pm. Based on its policy, it decided that it did not meet the threshold for noise nuisance or enforcement action. Following the resident’s disagreement, the landlord visited her home on 16 January 2024.

This was reasonable in the circumstances. Notes of the visit record that it heard the noise on 2 occasions for approximately 15 – 30 seconds. This, it again classed as general living noise, as it occurred during daytime hours and was brief and infrequent. The landlord also spoke with the neighbour and identified the source of the noise as tobacco being struck on the floor. It recommended practical measures to reduce the noise transmission, including the use of a rubber mat. It demonstrated good practice as it engaged with other agencies in relation to the neighbour, including safeguarding considerations.

This approach was proactive and in accordance with methods recommended in our spotlight report on noise complaints. During the complaints process, the resident submitted further recordings. The landlord acted reasonably in reviewing these but maintained its original position. In accordance with its policy, it also offered mediation as a way of resolving the dispute. This was a proportionate and appropriate step in circumstances involving everyday living noise. The resident declined this option.

We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and that she remains unhappy with the action that was taken by the landlord. However, the landlord acted in line with its ASB and nuisance policy by responding within the required timescales and assessing the evidence provided. It took proportionate steps to investigate the noise, including visiting the resident’s property, engaging with the neighbour and offering mediation. Following the complaint, the landlord took further steps to mitigate the situation by providing the neighbour with a grinder and rubber mat to help reduce noise.

It follows that we have not identified that there were any failings by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure Our Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint.

It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and stage 1 complaint response on time, which was consistent with the Code. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 6 working days outside of the 20-working day timescale of an escalation. The landlord failed to agree an extension with the resident. This was a departure from the Code. It also failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay.

This was a missed opportunity to take steps to put things right. We have seen no evidence of significant detriment to the resident as a result of the delay, and have therefore made a proportionate order accordingly. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The records the landlord provided were adequate for us to complete our investigation. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear and thorough throughout the complaint. Complaint handling The landlord may wish to remind complaint handling staff that timescales for responses should be adhered to, and that extensions should be sought where necessary.