London Borough of Brent (202453056)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453056

London Borough of Brent

26 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant of the landlord since November 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority, and it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident’s upstairs neighbour is a tenant of a leaseholder, who is the tenant of a housing association. For clarity, in this report we will refer to the leaseholder as the neighbour’s landlord, and the housing association as the managing agent.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her noise reports. It said it inspected the property and concluded that the issue was because of day to day domestic noise. The resident did not escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 7 July 2023 the resident reported noise nuisance from her neighbour to the landlord. She also shared her concerns about the neighbour’s landlord installing laminate flooring in their property. She said she felt suicidal because of “feeling terrorised by the constant noise”. She asked for the neighbour’s landlord to lay carpet to minimise the noise radiation and for the landlord to install soundproofing.
The landlord provided a detailed response to the resident on 20 July 2023. It said that it wrote to the neighbour’s landlord and managing agent about the noise nuisance. It asked them to confirm that the laminated flooring in the upstairs property had soundproofing underlay. With the resident’s consent, it signposted her for support. It also said it made enquiries to find out if leaseholders could install laminated flooring in their property.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2024, about noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour. She explained that a surveyor informed her that the only resolution would be to soundproof the property. She said that her neighbour’s landlord had threatened her, but the landlord failed to act. She also said that the landlord did not signpost her for support as promised or communicated with her about the issues.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 1 May 2024, and said:
1. Following the resident reported noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour, it inspected the property on 2 February 2023. The surveyor acknowledged that he could hear the upstairs neighbour moving around, which suggested that the sound proofing in the property was poor. It explained that there was little it could do because it did not have funding for soundproofing works.
2. The resident upstairs was a leaseholder, and their lease did not prevent them from installing laminated flooring in their property. It said that while it can advise the neighbour about ways of lowering the noise, the neighbour did not have to install carpets or soundproofing in their property.
3. It agreed to write to the neighbour’s landlord about the number of people allegedly living in the property, the noise nuisance and ways to lower the noise.
4. It asked the nuisance control team to install a noise recording system in the resident’s property to measure the level of noise the resident was experiencing. However, it explained there could be a delay due to the demand for the service. It said that when it received the report, it would determine whether the noise met the threshold for ‘statutory nuisance’.
5. It had no record of the resident having received a threatening note from the neighbour’s landlord. The resident agreed to send it a copy of the note.
6. It signposted the resident for support as agreed with her on 18 July 2023. It agreed with the resident to make a new referral within 7 days. The resident said she would also contact her GP for support.
The landlord referred the resident to the nuisance control team in May 2024. They installed the noise recording equipment in the resident’s property in June 2024. It also wrote to the neighbour’s landlord and managing agent about the noise nuisance. The neighbour’s landlord confirmed it had spoken to its tenant and that it had installed soundproofing prior to putting down the laminated flooring. It also confirmed that 1 adult and 3 children lived at the property.
On 14 June 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour had threatened her. The landlord reported the incident to the neighbour’s landlord and made a new support referral for the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 August 2024, because the delays in sharing the outcome of the noise monitoring with her. She also said that since the landlord wrote to the neighbour’s landlord, the noise had increased.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2024, and said:
1. The resident made a service request in July 2023, about the noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour. It explained that the noise was due to the limited space between the ceiling and the floor above, which caused the noise to amplify.
2. On 1 May 2024 it requested the nuisance control team to install the noise recorder in the property, and they said there was a delay of up to 8 weeks to install the equipment. They installed the noise recorder on 22 June 2024 and collected it on 17 July 2024.
3. The nuisance control team shared their findings on 8 August 2024. They said that although impact noises and children could be heard, overall, the noise level did not meet the threshold for statutory noise nuisance.
4. It apologised for the delay in sharing the outcome of the noise monitoring with the resident. It said that the noise from her upstairs neighbour appeared unintentional and amounted to domestic noise. It explained that as her neighbour was not its tenants the actions it could take were limited, but it wrote to their landlord about ways of reducing noise.
5. It would contact the resident within a week to discuss the results of the noise monitoring and the next step. To manage the resident’s expectations, it reiterated that sound proofing of the property would unlikely be a viable option because of the associated costs and the available evidence relating to the noise levels.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

The resident contacted us on 27 March 2025 to make a complaint about her landlord’s handling of her noise and ASB reports. She said that the noise nuisance was ongoing. She explained that because of the noise, she could not enjoy her home, and this significantly impacted on her mental health. She said that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to install sound proofing in her property. She would also like compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported that the situation had significantly impacted on her mental health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports and it issued its stage 1 complaint response in February 2023. We did not see that the resident requested to escalate that complaint. We may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in April 2024.Therefore, while historical reports of the problem offer some context to the current complaint, our investigation will focus on events from April 2023 onwards.

ASB reports

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour has occurred, or if the resident’s neighbour breached their tenancy agreement, as that is not within our remit. We can assess whether the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, considering all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it would not investigate domestic noise complaints under this policy. It says that it will discuss an ASB report and explain the investigation process to the complainant within 10 working days. It will also agree a way forward with the complainant, signpost them for support if needed and manage their expectations. It elaborates that it will seek the complainant’s consent prior to approaching the alleged perpetrator about the issue reported. It will work in partnership with other agencies and when appropriate to do so, it will take enforcement actions against the alleged perpetrator.
We understand that the landlord previously investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour and inspected the property in February 2023. It concluded that while it could hear the neighbour from the resident’s property, the noise amounted to day to day domestic noise.
On 7 July 2023 the resident reported noise nuisance from her neighbour. On 20 July 2023 the landlord updated her on the actions it took while investigating her reports. It reiterated that it had inspected the property and concluded the issue was domestic noise. It said that while it could not carry out soundproofing works, it asked its property services team whether other options were available to resolve the issues. It also said it wrote to the neighbour’s landlord about the matters and made enquiries to confirm whether leaseholders could install laminated flooring in their properties. It also confirmed that it referred the resident for support. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed it acted on the resident’s reports and provided her with a detailed update.
In July 2023 the landlord also said that it would keep the resident updated on its progress. However, we did not see evidence that following its update in July 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident about the matters until she raised a complaint in April 2024. While we did not see evidence that the resident requested an update between July 2023 and April 2024, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform her of the outcome of its queries to the neighbour’s landlord. The evidence shows that it shared this with her 9 months later. Its failing to provide the resident with timely updates was unreasonable and caused her inconvenience as she had to raise the issue as a formal complaint.
In May 2024 the landlord shared the outcome of its communications with the neighbour’s landlord with the resident. However, it did not show that during the complaint process it provided feedback to the resident about its query to its property services team. It is unclear whether it had a response or whether its property services team recommended solutions to the noise transmission. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to pursue this and feedback to the resident.
We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord because the evidence neither proves nor disproves either.
In this case, we understand that in her stage 1 complaint the resident said she received a threatening handwritten note from her neighbour’s landlord. She explained that she reported the incident to the landlord, but it did not act. The landlord said it did not receive her report and asked her for a copy of the note. We did not see evidence that prior to April 2024, the resident had reported the incident to the landlord. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord in investigating her report.
The resident said that in 2023, the landlord failed to refer her for support as agreed. We understand this was upsetting for the resident, who was keen to receiving support. However, the landlord explained that it made the referral to the relevant team in July 2023, and we saw evidence supporting this. While the failings in correctly processing her support referral was upsetting to the resident, this was out of the landlord’s control. This is because although the landlord is a local authority, it signposted the resident for support outside of its housing function and had no control over the processing of support referrals or the allocation of support.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, it said that it would make a new support referral for the resident within 7 days. While this was reasonable, the evidence shows that there was a delay of 5 weeks in making the referral. The landlord did not show that it explained the reason for the delay to the resident. This was unreasonable. We recognise we did not see evidence that the delay impacted on the overall outcome for the resident. This is because we cannot say that the resident would have received support sooner if the landlord had done the referral 5 weeks earlier.
In May 2024 the landlord referred the resident to the local authority nuisance control team for them to install the noise recording equipment in the property. This was reasonable, especially as the resident said the noise was getting worse and it significantly impacted on her wellbeing. The landlord also demonstrated that it kept the resident updated and effectively managed her expectations about the timeframe for installing the equipment. It showed that although it concluded the issue was domestic noise, it was keen to understand the extend of the problem. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided feedback to the resident on the nuisance control team’s investigation. It explained that following its review of the recordings, the noise recorded did not amount to statutory nuisance or meet the threshold for issuing a noise abatement notice to her neighbour. It said that overall, the noise captured during the recordings was domestic noise and did not appear intentional. The landlord showed that it reviewed the evidence gathered and provided her with feedback in keeping with its ASB policy. While those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it recognised that there was a delay of 5 weeks in sharing its findings with the resident. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue in her stage 2 complaint.
We understand that the resident was seeking for the landlord to carry out some soundproofing works in her property. While the landlord is not disputing this would help, it made its position clear about not having the funds for such works. The evidence shows that it repeatedly informed the resident that it could not offer soundproofing works as a resolution to her complaint. Additionally, after investigating the level of the noise, it explained that it did not have the evidence that statutory nuisance occurred. We recognise this was upsetting for the resident, however, the landlord appropriately managed her expectations and repeatedly made its position clear on the matter. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord, and this limited its options and influence in dealing with the noise. Nevertheless, it actively engaged with the neighbour’s landlord and its managing agent. It provided advice on ways to reduce noise by, for example, using rugs. It also checked that the neighbour’s landlord was permitted to install laminated flooring under the covenants of their lease. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. It has shown that it investigated the resident’s reports and took appropriate actions around the resident’s concerns about the noise.
In June 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour threatened her. She said that when the landlord wrote to the neighbour’s landlord, the neighbour reacted and made threats toward her. The landlord discussed the matter with the resident on the same day and informed her that it would contact the neighbour’s landlord about the incident. The evidence shows that it did this on the same day and made clear to them that the neighbour’s conduct was unacceptable and amounted to ASB. This was reasonable by the landlord, it acted in keeping with its ASB policy. Its actionsseemed to have resolved the matter because the resident did not report further threatening behaviour from the neighbour.
The landlord informed us that completing a vulnerability assessment had not been part of its ASB procedure at the time of the resident’s reports. The purpose of such assessment is to understand the resident’s vulnerability and assess the impact the ASB may have. Based on the assessment, the landlord can then put suitable measures in place to support the resident and mitigate the risks, if needed. In this case, the landlord showed that it considered the resident’s vulnerability and the impact of the issues on her. It signposted her for support, encouraged her to speak to her GP and advised her to contact the police if she felt threatened by her neighbour. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed it was sensitive to the resident’s vulnerability and sought suitable support for her.
We recognise that the landlord investigated the resident’s noise reports and her report of threats from her neighbour. Since April 2024, the landlord correctly updated the resident on the actions it planned to take and informed her it would speak to the neighbour’s landlord. However, it did not show that it specifically discussed consent with the resident or explain that the neighbour could identify her as the complainant if it shared her reports with their landlord. We recognise that it would have been difficult for the landlord to act on her reports without the neighbour knowing who made the complaint. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss consent with the resident prior to approaching the neighbour’s landlord. Its failings to do this was not in keeping with its ASB policy.
Additionally, we understand that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports and did not have evidence to support taking enforcement action against the neighbour. However, it did not show that when the resident reported noise nuisance in July 2023 and threats in 2024, it offered mediation as a way of resolving the issues. In keeping with its ASB policy it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this option with the resident within 10 days of her reporting the problems. We cannot determine this impacted on the overall outcome for the resident because we do not know if either parties would have agreed to take part in mediation.
Overall, we determined there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord investigated the resident’s ASB reports, signposted her for support, correctly managed her expectations and considered her vulnerability. During its investigations, it also worked in partnership with the neighbour’s landlord and the local authority nuisance control team. However, there were delays in the landlord updating the resident on the outcome of its investigations and making a new support referral. Additionally, it did not adequately discussed consent for sharing the resident’s reports with the neighbour and did not show it had offered mediation to them. While we recognise the landlord’s failings caused some inconvenience to the resident, we did not see evidence that its failings impacted the overall outcome for her.
In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time, and effort caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The landlord should consider our apologies guidance which is available via our website.
2. Pay £100 compensation directly to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by its handling of her ASB reports.
3. Discuss with its property services team whether they can suggest ways to minimise noise transmission between the properties. The landlord is to share the outcome of their conversation with us and the resident.
4. Contact the resident regarding her ongoing concerns of noise nuisance and discuss mediation as a way of resolving the ongoing issues.