London Borough of Brent (202319729)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319729

London Borough of Brent

20 February 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 response to reports of noise from a lift in the adjoining property.
This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 3-bed semi-detached house, since 1983. She lives with her adult son and daughter.
The resident is represented in her complaint to the landlord and this Service by her son. This report will refer to both as ‘the resident’ for clarity.
On 8 February 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. The neighbouring property had a through-floor lift going from the living room to the bedroom. It was against the adjoining wall.
2. The lift generated so much noise and vibration that it affected her family’s sleep and wellbeing.
3. There were also a series of ceiling hoists which generated noise.
4. The bathroom was on the ground floor so the lift could be in use at any time of the day or night.
5. The neighbouring property was empty at that time but she wanted to resolve the issue before any new tenants moved in.
6. She asked the landlord to carry out works to the lift to reduce the noise and to install sound insulation.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2023. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023. It said:
1. It was in the process of getting the lift and hoists serviced. Engineers had inspected the system and would be carrying out repairs to stop the “juddering” noise.
2. It would meet the engineers on site to inspect the lift. It would then decide if sound insulation was required.
3. It would update her.
On 9 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. It had carried out sound testing but the tests were not accurate because:

i. It did not take any base line measurements.

ii. The lift was not always in motion when it took measurements.

iii. It had applied incorrect thresholds.

iv. It did not consider vibration as well as noise.

The officers were not specialists in this issue. The Environmental Health officer said she had never dealt with a case like this before and usually dealt with “dogs barking and loud music”.

The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 11 August 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. It said:
1. It had serviced the lift and hoists and replaced some of the parts. There were no further issues with the lift.
2. It had carried out a sound test. Noise levels were within World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended levels for daytime noise.
3. The noise in the bedroom “slightly” exceeded recommended levels.
4. It had previously told her that sound insulation may be an option. However, due to the sound test results and because the noise was “not deliberate” it did not consider this a statutory nuisance. There was therefore “no requirement for soundproofing”.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She felt it had already decided it did not want to provide sound insulation before carrying out its tests. She also felt the test methodology was flawed. The case became one we could consider in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

This Service has asked the landlord to provide information about its approach to sound insulation. The landlord has advised that this is contained within its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. The ASB policy does not refer to noise from lifts or to sound insulation.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not refer to lifts, sound insulation or noise transference.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

Where a landlord is a local authority, the Ombudsman may only consider complaints which relate to their provision or management of social housing.
The Environmental Health department (EHD) has a wider statutory function not directly related to housing management. This investigation will therefore not consider the reasonableness of the actions of the EHD. It will be limited to considering the actions of the landlord’s housing function.
This Service acknowledges that during the complaint the resident raised concerns about whether the landlord should have sought planning permission or carried out environmental tests before installing the lift.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, making it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and informed decisions to be made. This investigation will therefore only consider events that took place within 12 months of the complaint.
As the lift was installed approximately 10 years before the complaint was made, we have not considered this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise from a lift in the adjoining property.

The resident first raised concerns with the landlord about the noise from the lift in January 2023. At this time the neighbouring property was empty and the landlord was carrying out void works.
The resident told the landlord that the lift was causing “major noise and vibration” and that this was impacting her family’s use of the property. As the property was empty, she asked it to install sound insulation before new tenants moved in.
The landlord replied and said that it did not “provide alterations or improvements such as wall insulation”. We have been unable to find any wording in the policies provided by the landlord that support its blanket statement that it did not provide such alterations or improvements. That it communicated this to the resident was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord said the new tenants could report any noise or mechanical issues and it would arrange any required repairs. This was not unreasonable. However, we consider that in taking this approach it was missing an opportunity to prevent any ill-feeling between the neighbours before it started.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident stressed the impact the noise from the lift was having. She said it was affecting her family’s sleep and wellbeing and asked the landlord to visit to hear the noise itself. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed the impact this issue was having on the resident and her family. It therefore failed to demonstrate appropriate empathy.
The landlord agreed in its stage 1 complaint response to visit to assess the noise. It said it would then consider whether insulation was required. We consider that this approach was reasonable. It was however in contrast to the approach it took 2 months previously when it had stated that it would not install sound insulation. This caused the resident confusion and mismanaged her expectations.
The resident contacted the landlord 12 weeks after the stage 1 complaint response as she had not received an update. That it did not update her as agreed was unreasonable and caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident until 6 weeks later. This was an unreasonable delay. It said its surveyor had investigated the noise levels and they met “legally acceptable” levels. It also said its “policy on noise” was that it “did not soundproof properties”. The resident replied and said that the landlord had carried out no investigations inside her property and that this would be necessary to ascertain noise levels.
We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord had completed any investigations into the noise from the lift at this time. It is not clear if this is because no investigations had been completed or because a record has not been kept and provided to this Service. Either way, this was a failing.
It is not clear what policy the landlord was referring to in relation to soundproofing. The Ombudsman has requested information on the landlord’s stance on this issue. It signposted us to its ASB policy however there is no mention of soundproofing within this policy. As we have found no mention within its policies, it was inappropriate that it told the resident that its policy was it did not soundproof properties in cases of noise. That the landlord again changed its stance about soundproofing caused the resident further confusion and again mismanaged her expectations.
On 1 August 2023 the landlord’s surveyor and an officer from the EHD noise nuisance team carried out a sound test. The records show they used a mobile phone app to measure the sound in both properties when the lift was in use. The EHD officer said the levels in the bedroom were “just” over the threshold recommended by the WHO for sleep (31.4 decibels rather than 30 decibels). They said the noise levels were “well within” the threshold for daytime noise.
Following the sound test the resident raised concerns about the testing. She said she felt the methods used were inaccurate and the readings did not reflect the level of the noise. The resident said she had contacted the lift manufacturer who outlined possible causes and provided potential solutions.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the information gathered by the resident or addressed her concerns about the sound testing. This was unreasonable. We acknowledge however that the landlord had had the lift serviced by engineers and that it was reasonable therefore that it relied on the advice of such experts.
The landlord advised the resident that it did not consider it necessary to soundproof the property as the noise did not exceed nuisance levels. This was not strictly accurate as the landlord itself had acknowledged that the threshold had been exceeded, however slightly. This Service considers that it was unreasonable of the landlord to base its decision not to install insulation on a test that had shown recommended noise levels were exceeded.
It is not clear to this Service why the landlord decided to handle the resident’s concerns as a statutory nuisance complaint. The resident was clear within her complaint that her issue was with the noise made by the lift. She did not blame the noise on her neighbour, indeed the neighbouring property was empty at the time.
This Service does not consider that handling the issue solely as a statutory nuisance was appropriate. Had the noise met the threshold for a statutory nuisance the EHD would have been obliged to serve a noise abatement notice. This would either be on the landlord itself if the property was empty, or on the next tenant who, given the property was adapted, would likely have a disability. This could leave them unable to use a lift that they required to enjoy the property fully.
We would instead have expected the landlord to deal with the noise as matter of noise transference and to explore what could be done to mitigate the noise. Rather than solely relying on statutory thresholds and decibel readings, it should reasonably have considered whether the noise was impacting the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
The resident has told this Service that the noise from the lift disturbs the family’s sleep. She also states it prevents them from holding a conversation in the living room when it is in use and that the vibration causes the cables to come out of the television each time the lift is used.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise identified that, as in this case, noise transference is a key issue. It encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, we recognise that the landlord is not contractually obliged to provide sound insulation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which states that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS.
The HHSRS recognises that exposure to noise can impact on residents’ physical and mental health. Guidance that accompanies the HHSRS recommends assessing the noise levels within a dwelling using “properly calibrated noise meters”. To prevent problems from noise from outside of the property the level of insulation should be “appropriate to the ambient noise levels”.
This Service considers that the landlord should reasonably have carried out appropriate testing to satisfy itself that there is not a category hazard under the HHSRS and that the property therefore complies with the Decent Homes Standard. While we accept that the landlord did carry out some testing, we are not satisfied that the method of testing was satisfactory given the resident’s misgivings. Indeed, the evidence states that it used a mobile phone app which cannot be considered to be a “properly calibrated noise meter”.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Took an unreasonable position when it told the resident that it did not provide alterations or improvements such as insulation.
2. Failed to keep the resident updated about progress.
3. Changed its position in relation to soundproofing on several occasions which mismanaged the resident’s expectations.
4. Based its decision not to install soundproofing on the outcome of a test that had shown recommended noise levels were in fact exceeded.
5. Handled the noise issue as solely a statutory nuisance rather than a repair issue.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a lift in the adjoining property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It took the landlord 19 working days from the date it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint to provide its response. It did not request an extension to the response timeframe, nor did it acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response. This was a failing to adhere to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined the actions it was taking to investigate the resident’s concerns. It said it would keep the resident updated. It did not however provide any timescales for when it would update the resident. This was unreasonable.
The resident chased the landlord for an update 12 weeks after the stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman would reasonably have expected the landlord to remain in regular contact with the resident and agree a frequency of updates. That it did not do so caused the resident to have to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2023 following an email from the resident. The resident made it clear that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue. It should therefore reasonably have considered the resident chasing an update on 7 June 2023 as her stage 2 escalation request. It then missed a further opportunity to raise a stage 2 complaint in July 2023 when the resident contacted its Chief Executive Officer. These failings delayed the process and the resident’s access to this Service by 2 months.
Once it had raised the stage 2 complaint, the landlord provided its response within the timescales outlined in the Code and its own policy.
The resident has expressed concern that the landlord had decided on the outcome of the stage 2 complaint before it completed its investigations. On 18 August 2023, 18 days before it provided its stage 2 response, it replied to an email from her MP and said there were “no issues as [it was] within legal sound limits”. The resident was copied into this communication.
It is understandable that the resident was frustrated that the landlord had communicated its decision to the MP before responding to her complaint. That it did so was inappropriate. However, its email to the MP was sent more than 2 weeks after the sound testing was completed. We do not therefore consider that this necessarily means that it had decided the outcome of the complaint before it carried out its investigations.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sufficiently detailed, it failed to identify the failings in its handling of the case that were identified by this Service.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Failed to acknowledge or apologise for failing to provide its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes outlined in the Code or its own policy.
2. Failed to keep the resident updated as agreed in in its stage 1 complaint response.
3. Delayed in escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process.
4. Failed to resolve the resident’s concerns.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise from a lift in the adjoining property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 which comprises:

i. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its response to reports of noise from a lift in the adjoining property.

ii. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its handling of this case and its approach to noise nuisance. Within its review it should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must arrange a mutually convenient time for an independent technical expert to inspect both properties to carry out testing to ascertain:

i. Whether the noise from the lift is at an acceptable level for the daytime and nighttime.

ii. What actions the landlord could take to reduce or resolve the issue.

Within 2 weeks from the date of the independent inspection the landlord must advise the resident and the Ombudsman of its intention in relation to the recommendations from the expert.