Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Brent (202329275)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329275

London Borough of Brent

29 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a ground floor maisonette.
  2. Between 2008 and 2021, the resident made a number of reports about noise related antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour above. The Ombudsman has previously carried out an investigation into the landlord’s handling of some of these earlier reports.
  3. In 2015 the landlord carried out a noise assessment of the resident’s property. The assessment concluded that ordinary domestic noise was more audible due to the property not having modern sound insulation.
  4. Between 24 December 2022 and 3 January 2023, the resident made reports to the landlord about noise related nuisance and ASB coming from her neighbour, who lived in the property above. The resident said her neighbour’s children were jumping up and down and stamping on the resident’s ceiling. This meant she had been unable to sit in any room and watch TV, listen to the radio, read, or just enjoy her property. She also said the noise had meant she had been unable to sleep. The resident asked the landlord to take legal action against her neighbour.

 

  1. On 3 February 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour had been verbally abusive towards her. The resident and her friend who was present submitted statements about the incident which had taken place during the evening on 23 January 2023. She asked the landlord to install a CCTV camera and noise monitoring equipment.
  2. Between February 2023 and March 2023, the landlord told the resident its nuisance control team had looked into her reports of ASB and determined these incidents were domestic noise. The landlord explained it could not take any further action against her neighbour for this reason. It advised the resident had the right to take her own legal action directly to the court if she was able to evidence that the noise related ASB was causing a statutory nuisance. It suggested the resident should seek independent legal advice before considering taking such action.
  3. On 22 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord for it to investigate her previous report of being verbally abused by her neighbour 7 weeks earlier. 2 days later the landlord apologised for its delay in investigating this incident and said it would contact the resident within 10 working days.
  4. On 27 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to install adequate sound insulation at her property. The landlord responded that it had no legal obligation to provide additional sound proofing at the resident’s property. It said the property had been built in line with the building regulations at that time in relation to sound proofing. The landlord said it would ensure her neighbour’s property above had been correctly insulated.
  5. On 30 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. She said this was because the landlord had not taken her reports seriously or responded within its guidelines. The resident also explained that the landlord had refused to consider the impact on her wellbeing, which included that she did not feel safe in her home as a result of the ASB from her neighbour.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2023. The landlord said it would carry out a noise assessment at the resident’s property. It also said it would carry out a review of the resident’s reports of ASB, including her allegations of abuse previously directed at the resident by her neighbour.
  7. Between May 2023 and June 2023, the resident said her neighbour had moved out of the property above. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said this was because she had repeatedly disputed that her reports of ASB were ordinary domestic noise. She also said the landlord had not investigated the incident during which she said she had been verbally abused by her neighbour.
  8. On 21 July 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said there was no evidence that her neighbour had caused a statutory nuisance and so could not take enforcement action against them. It said the reports did not meet the threshold for it to install CCTV or noise monitoring equipment. The landlord accepted it should have responded to the resident’s report on 3 February 2023 sooner. It awarded the resident £200 compensation for this delay.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating she wanted the landlord to listen, acknowledge and take her complaints of ASB seriously, and in line with its own guidelines. The resident has said there is nothing that can replace the last 15 years of anxiety, and that despite her neighbour having moved out of the property above, she still feels unsafe in her own home.
  10. Between September 2023 and December 2023, the resident and the landlord continued to communicate about her previous reports of ASB by her neighbour. The landlord visited the resident at her property and sent a further written apology. The landlord explained that it could not revisit and investigate her historic complaints about its handling of her ASB reports dating back years earlier. The landlord’s assessment concluded that it would not install additional sound insulation at the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of Investigation

  1. We acknowledge the resident’s reports that she has experienced ASB over a significant period of time. We understand this has been a very difficult time for her. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed antisocial behaviour, but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable given all the circumstances, taking into account the law, its own internal policies and industry best practices.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  4. We have taken into consideration the resident had been reporting ASB about her neighbour since 2008. We do not doubt the resident has been exposed to antisocial behaviour for the last 17 years. We also accept that the actions of the perpetrator have had a strong negative impact on her wellbeing and mental health. The Ombudsman also caried out a separate investigation of the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB during this time and we will not reconsider events which were included in our previous investigation. However, in line with the Scheme we have considered the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB between August 2022 to its final response provided on 21 July 2023.
  5. The resident has said she considers that the issues of ASB and the landlord’s handling of her reports have impacted her health. We acknowledge the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents should not behave in a way which could cause harassment, nuisance, alarm, or distress to any person. This includes making noise at an unacceptable level which disturbs other people.

 

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will make a record of a resident’s report of ASB, complete a risk assessment form to categorise the severity of the incident, and will respond to a resident within 5 working days. The landlord will not investigate actions that are considered to be normal everyday activities or household noise.
  2. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. This will not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason.
  3. The resident telephoned the landlord in the early hours of 25 December 2022. She asked its nuisance control team to visit her property that night to witness the constant noise which included jumping on her ceiling and shouting from her neighbour above. The landlord advised the resident that due to the holiday period; it did not have anyone to attend but she could make her report online. This was a reasonable response as many offices are closed or only respond to emergency incidents during the Christmas holiday period.
  4. Between 24 December 2022 and 3 January 2023, the resident submitted 3 diary log sheets to the landlord describing incidents of noise nuisance from her neighbour. Records show the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 11 January 2023. This letter described the allegations made by the resident and warned the neighbour of their responsibilities to minimise the levels of noise coming from their property, as this was causing suffering to other residents.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately in these circumstances by seeking to address the allegations made by the resident, as well as sending a letter to her neighbour warning them of the consequences if there was evidence, they had committed further ASB. This was a proportionate response and in line with its ASB policy which states the landlord will use interventions such as verbal and written warnings to seek to resolve complaints of ASB.
  6. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets which records show it reviewed when she had submitted them. This is because this is in line with its ASB policy, which states it will use diary sheets as a proportionate way of collating evidence about ASB from its residents.

 

 

  1. On 21 March 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for its delay in responding to her communication on 4 February 2023, about her reports of noise related nuisance and ASB. It explained that it had drafted an email response on 7 February 2023. The landlord has said it had not realised this had not been sent until the resident chased it on 17 March 2023. The landlord’s apology was proportionate for the length of the delay, and it ultimately responded to the questions raised by the resident in its response.
  2. The landlord said its nuisance control team had assessed her reports of noise related nuisance and ASB between 24 December 2022 and 3 January 2023. The noise included that her neighbour’s children were running, jumping and there were heavy footsteps on the resident’s ceiling. The landlord said the noise described was domestic noise and so it could not take any further action. The landlord’s response was appropriate as it had assessed the resident’s reports and updated her. 
  3. The landlord advised the resident that if she disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of her ASB complaints, she could take her own legal action. The landlord explained that she could refer her case to the local magistrate’s court under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It advised her that she would need to persuade the court that her neighbour was causing a statutory nuisance. The landlord suggested the resident should take independent legal advice before pursuing this. We understand that the resident was unhappy with this advice from the landlord. However, it was reasonable that the landlord provided this advice to her so that she was aware that this was an option she could pursue. The resident was not under any obligation to take legal action and if she did so, this   would not change the landlord’s obligations under its ASB policy.
  4. On 24 March 2023 the landlord apologised that it had not communicated with the resident about the incident she reported on 3 February 2023, during which her neighbour had verbally abused her. Although it was positive that it apologised, the landlord’s initial contact was 32 working days after the resident had raised the report. Records also show the resident had chased the landlord for it to investigate this report of ASB. We understand the landlord’s delay may have reasonably added to the resident’s distress she was feeling following this incident with her neighbour. The landlord should have responded to the resident within 5 working days in line with its ASB policy. This delay was significant as the resident had been caused anxiety by the incident. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.

 

 

  1. On 24 March 2023 the landlord also said it would respond to the resident within a further 10 working days about the incident where she said she was verbally abused by her neighbour. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord followed this communication up with the resident. This was not appropriate. We expect landlords to communicate with residents within the timescales it agrees with them. If it needed more time to respond to the resident, it should have updated her of this along with the reasons why it needed longer to respond. This is evidence of poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 9 May 2023, it was reasonable when it offered to carry out a noise assessment at the resident’s property. We understand the resident felt this was no longer necessary as the neighbour had vacated the property. However, it was reasonable the landlord offered to do this because it might have been an issue with the flooring in the property above, which risked continuing to be an issue for the resident when a new neighbour moved into the property.
  3. In April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to install further insulation within her property to deal with the noise coming from her neighbour’s property above. The landlord responded that it had no legal obligation to install additional sound proofing. It said it would ensure her neighbour’s flooring was correctly insulated and noise reduced by carpets and rugs. The landlord is not obliged to add additional sound insulation to the resident’s property, and it was reasonable it sought to ensure the flooring above the resident’s property was properly insulated.
  4. The resident has said since her new neighbour has moved into the property above, she still experiences significant noise transference from them. She said this has continued to cause her distress and anxiety.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 14 June 2023. The landlord provided its final response to her complaint on 21 July 2023. This was 27 working days later. We have not seen any evidence of why the landlord needed to extend its response to, and it did not communicate this to the resident. Therefore, the landlord should have provided its final response to the resident’s complaint within 20 working days in line with its complaints policy. Although we acknowledge the overall delay was not excessive.

 

 

 

  1. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it explained it would not authorise the installation of CCTV or noise monitoring equipment. The landlord said this was because the incident in which the resident said she had been verbally abused was a ‘one-off’. It also explained that it did not consider the noise nuisance and related ASB the resident reported to have been evidence of a statutory nuisance. The landlord said it would only install this type of equipment where it was able to demonstrate it would be likely to gather significant evidence. We understand this incident had a serious impact on the resident. However, the landlord’s explanation for not installing this equipment was a reasonable and proportionate response to the evidence which had been submitted.
  2. There is evidence of failings, as mentioned above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. This includes its delay in investigating, and poor communication in its handling of the incident when the resident reported on 3 February 2023 that she had been verbally abused by her neighbour.
  3. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £200 compensation within its final response to the resident’s complaint. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would have issued if the landlord had not made this offer. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which had a significant impact on the resident.
  4. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £200 it awarded the resident in its final complaint response unless this has already been paid.