London Borough of Brent (202443604)

Background

1. The resident lives in a three‑storey block of flats. Her flat is located on the middle floor, and she experienced ongoing noise disturbances from the flat above. When the landlord failed to resolve the noise issues, she raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise disturbances from the flat above.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise disturbances from the flat above.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise disturbances from the flat above

4. The landlord did not consistently apply its Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy or evidence that it carried out a thorough and robust investigation into the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.

Complaint handling

5. While the landlord could have requested an extension to the stage 2 response deadline before it was due, the delay in doing so was minimal, and there is no evidence that it had a detrimental impact on the resident or on the outcome of the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the noise disturbances she experienced affected her health. 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 not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. For this investigation the landlord provided us with a copy of its ASB policy. It did not provide any additional policies that noise complaints may be handled under.
8. The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014’s definition of ASB, as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Its ASB policy says that when it receives a report of ASB it will:
   1. Ask questions to determine if the report is classified as high, medium or low.
   2. Contact the complainant within 5 working days, obtain further details and complete a risk assessment.
   3. Contact the alleged perpetrator within 10 working days where appropriate.
   4. Collect evidence, which could include diary sheets, professional observations, statements and visits to other neighbours.
9. The ASB policy states that the landlord “expects a level of tolerance among people and will seek to make a fair evaluation on whether complaints are reasonable. It will not investigate actions that are considered to be normal everyday activities or household noise”.
10. The resident told us that she began complaining about noise from the flat above in September 2024. The evidence shows that on 22 December 2024 she notified the landlord that the tenant above was using a dehumidifier. She said this was a noise nuisance and causing her flat to vibrate. The following day the landlord wrote to the tenant above advising that use of a dehumidifier was not permitted and further use would be a breach of the tenancy agreement.
11. This action showed that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and attempted to prevent future noise disturbances. However, it did not demonstrate that it had assessed if the noise disturbance was considered ASB under its policy or completed an investigation before issuing a warning letter. It did not show that it gathered further information from the resident, nor did it show it had visited the tenant above. This was a missed opportunity for early intervention to prevent the situation from escalating and to manage expectations.
12. In January 2025, the resident contacted her MP as she continued to experience noise disturbances from the flat above. The landlord responded on 6 February 2025, explaining that the flat above was in significant disrepair and required extensive repair work. It advised that the tenant above was using a dehumidifier to manage damp and mould issues. It said it would arrange mediation between both tenants and look at options to reduce noise arising from the disrepair.
13. These were positive actions that could have helped the tenants to resolve the issue without further intervention. The resident did tell us that she was offered mediation. However, there was no evidence of this offer provided to us, nor was there any evidence that the landlord explored other options to reduce the noise, despite saying it would do so. This lack of follow through likely caused frustration for the resident, who was seeking a resolution to the ongoing noise disturbances.
14. The resident contacted her MP again in March 2025, and the landlord responded on 18 March 2025. It explained that flooring in the flat above remained damagedand that this, along with the regular presence of its repair contractors, had contributed to the noise disturbances. It said that due to the fabric of the building, noise transference was inevitable but that it would investigate the residents reports of slamming doors and stamping of feet separately.
15. This was a reasonable response, as it showed that the landlord had distinguished between noise transference and noise that could be deliberate and therefore fall under its ASB policy. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then followed its ASB policy or investigated the resident’s reports. This lack of action likely contributed to the resident’s ongoing distress, as she was left without clear guidance, meaningful updates, or reassurance that her concerns were being taken seriously.
16. The landlord completed a survey of the building on 7 April 2025. It found that the construction of the building provided little sound insulation and allowed everyday living noise to transmit easily between flats. It noted that there were no reasonable works that could be carried out to improve soundproofing without major structural alterations.
17. In its stage 1 response on 7 May 2025, the landlord referred to noise complaints made by the resident, including stamping of feet at 10.30pm on 25 April, and loud banging and stamping at 8am on 26 April. However, it has not provided us with copies of these reports. This indicates record keeping issues.
18. The landlord’s response failed to set out the findings of the survey it had carried out in April 2025. It also did not explain its reasons why it was unable to carry out any works to improve the building’s soundproofing. This was a failure to appropriately communicate outcomes to the resident and manage their expectations accordingly. Given the resident’s complaint was about noise disturbances, the landlord should have explained the investigations it had made to assess and reduce noise transference. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to clearly explain the reasons for any decisions made, and it did not show it had done so.
19. In its response to the MP on 30 May 2025, the landlord stated that it had spoken to the tenant above regarding the noise complaints. However, we have not been provided with any evidence of such a visit. While this does not mean that the visit did not occur, the absence of supporting documentation indicates further failures in the landlord’s record keeping.
20. On 24 June 2025, the resident reported that the tenant above was dragging furniture, and that when he used his washing machine, it caused her flat to shake. She queried whether the washing machine had been installed correctly. On 30 June 2025, she again reported issues relating to the washing machine causing her flat to shake.
21. Following these reports, the landlord opened an ASB case on 3 July 2025 but did not complete a risk assessment. It also did not show it had assessed if the noise disturbance was considered ASB, under its policy. It said it would contact the tenant above and review the noise app recordings the resident had sent. It has not supplied evidence that it assessed the resident’s noise recordings. However, on the same day, it issued a warning letter to the tenant above. The letter said he was required to stop using loud appliances, install proper flooring and refrain from disruptive behaviour during the night.
22. The resident continued to make reports of excessive noise from the flat above between July and October 2025. During this period, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations into the ASB reports. It did not show that it visited the tenant above, attempted to witness the noise disturbances itself, or contacted other neighbours. These are all actions that its ASB policy states should be considered as part of an investigation into ASB reports.
23. It may have been particularly useful for the landlord to attend both properties to witness the noise firsthand, as this would have enabled it to fully understand the issue and consider whether any practical guidance could be offered to help reduce the disturbances. For example, given that some of the reports related to use of a washing machine, the landlord could have suggested measures such as anti‑vibration mats to help reduce noise transference. The use of such mats was recommended to landlords in our Spotlight report on noise, published in October 2022.
24. Despite the lack of evidence of any investigation, the landlord issued another warning letter to the tenant above on 23 October 2025. The letter reminded him that excessive noise was a breach of the tenancy agreement and that further incidents could result in enforcement action. While this demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s reports seriously, the absence of evidence showing that it had carried out a robust and thorough investigation means we cannot be satisfied that it took all appropriate steps to address the noise disturbances in line with its ASB policy.
25. When the landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 December 2025, it acknowledged there had been some failings in the way it had handled the resident’s case. It said it had identified record keeping issues, a delay in issuing a warning letter and not completing a risk assessment. It awarded £400 compensation and said it would contact the resident within 2 weeks to explain the actions it would take to reduce the noise disturbances.
26. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with an update until 17 January 2026, 6 weeks later. This exceeded the 2 week timescale it had committed to and likely added to the resident’s frustration and distress.
27. While the landlord acknowledged some failings in its stage 2 response and awarded appropriate compensation for the issues it identified, it did not recognise all the failings highlighted by this investigation. In particular, it did not acknowledge that it failed to carry out thorough and robust investigations, did not consistently apply its ASB policy, and did not explore other practical options that might have helped to reduce noise transference.
28. The landlord’s communication with the resident appeared limited. Although it routinely acknowledged her contact, it did not demonstrate that it provided meaningful updates. It also did not show that it managed her expectations by clearly explaining the distinction between noise transference and noise‑related ASB, or how its investigations and any potential actions would differ depending on the nature of the noise. Inconsistent communication and a failure to manage expectations can undermine a resident’s confidence that the landlord is acting fairly, effectively, or in their best interests.
29. For these reasons, the compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified. Further compensation of £200 has therefore been ordered to align with our remedies guidance for cases where landlord failures have had an adverse effect on a resident.

30. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with the Code.
31. The landlord’s complaints policy also says that if it is unable to provide a response within the set timeframes, it can request an extension of up to 10 working days at stage 1 and up to 20 working days at stage 2. This was compliant with the Code.
32. The landlord responded at stage 1 in line with its policy. The escalation request was submitted on 28 October 2025, meaning that the landlord was due to respond by 25 November 2025.
33. On 2 December 2025, the landlord advised the resident that it required an extension and then provided its response by the revised deadline of 8 December 2025. While the request to extend the deadline was in line with its policy, it would have been appropriate to request an extension before the response was due.
34. However, the delay was minimal, and there was no evidence that it had a detrimental impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord could improve its record keeping by keeping clear, up‑to‑date notes of all visits, actions, and communications. This would make it easier to track what has happened and when, ensure appropriate action is taken and provide an accurate audit trail if issues arise.

Communication

36. Communication regarding the ongoing ASB issues appeared limited. The landlord is encouraged to consider what it can do to ensure enquiries receive timely, clear and thorough responses. This could include how to ensure customers are provided with realistic expectations to prevent unnecessary chasing by residents.