Noisy Neighbour - A Living Hell

Conversions carried out before July 2003 are the worst culprits
Photo copyright Janet Cameron

“The current requirement for resistance to the passage of sound under the Building Regulations came into force on 1 July 2003,” which goes on to explain the precise details for pre-completion sound-testing. This has come into force too late for some residents who live in flats cheaply converted from old family houses, pre-2003.

“It’s easy to bully old ladies,” remarks one senior citizen, driven mad by the night-time running of domestic appliances in the flat above her. The kitchen of the above flat is located precisely above Daisy’s bedroom. Although former tenants have co-operated with the “quiet hours” ruling of 11.00pm to 7.00am, this particular tenant, a single mother, will not conform.

The Noisy Neighbour Works the System

“In the beginning I approached her in a non-threatening way and she responded well, but it didn’t make any difference to her behaviour. One night I ran up her steps and hammered the door with my fists, but she didn’t answer. I put a note through her letterbox; it wasn't aggressive, but just said how ill and tired I was. Then I went for a long walk in the dark to keep myself steady. Next day, she retaliated with a note saying I was “nuts.” The landlord emailed saying she was a perfectly nice person and how could I have allowed the situation to get so bad?"

Daisy’s noise nightmare has continued for about seven months. Realising that the landlord and managing agents either disbelieved her or were not interested, Daisy contacted the local Noise Abatement department at the Council offices. On 28 September, 2010, they sent Daisy a “diary” to fill in, detailing the times of disturbance for the following two weeks, and emphasising: "...the completion of the diary sheet is crucial in the event of you making further complaints." However, the noisy neighbour was also informed of the procedure. “So she stopped, just for those two weeks,” says Daisy, “and I couldn’t send in the form. As soon as the time was up, the noise started again.”

If the diary had been completed and the tenant had not co-operated, the next step would be for the local authority to install sound equipment for two weeks, but again, the noisy neighbour would also be alerted. “Realising I was in a no-win situation, I started hassling the landlord a bit more. As a result, the managing agent paid her several visits and I thought, that’s good, he’s sorting it out. But no such luck. His frequent visits had no effect on the night-time washing."

Supporting Evidence of Noise Disturbance

At last - someone else complained. A problem with proving noise disturbance is in obtaining supporting evidence. No one had complained before because no other resident heard machines running in the early hours. The two flats in question are at the front of the building, while the top flat is empty and rear flats are protected from the din by distance. It was only when the tenant began using her vacuum cleaner at unsocial times at the back of her flat that the second complaint was lodged. This, thankfully, gave credibility to Daisy’s allegations.

When a plumber came into Daisy’s flat as a result of a leak from the washing machine in the above flat (which wasn’t fixed until the flow of water streamed through the ceiling rose onto her bed, and had to be caught in a bucket) that the full reality of the situation was appreciated. “Same thing,” says Daisy. “I’d sent photos of the stain on my ceiling to her landlord and the managing agents, then more photos when it got even wetter.”

While fixing the broken connection, the plumber also found that the washing machine was unbalanced, with the front raised by floor tiles and the back dropping low onto the wooden floor. Clearly, the level of noise was unacceptable even during daytime hours.

The woman must have had a stern warning, because for several weeks, through late autumn, the house was blissfully quiet. Daisy’s natural sleep rhythms had been severely disturbed and she still found it difficult to fall asleep, but gradually, she got back into a routine.

No Quality of Life or Health

“It was too good to last,” says Daisy. “It all started again, just before Christmas. I sent emails to everyone at 4.30 in the morning. The equipment had been going all night – I think this woman has OCD.” Next morning, Daisy suddenly heard hysterical screaming and a torrent of four-letter words. She guessed the phone call from the managing agent had just been received. “I felt sorry for her baby girl; she sounded terrified and was screaming too. I stayed in all day, with my blinds down and double locked my doors. I was too scared to go out till it was dark. She had never threatened me physically, so I couldn’t accuse her of that. All the same, the screaming and the foul language were enough.”

The situation has settled down once again, but of course, there are no guarantees. Although Daisy's complaints are now taken seriously, it is difficult, even for a landlord, to evict a young mother with a baby. On the other hand, Daisy is an owner-occupier, and in order to move, she must first sell her flat. “I bought my own property so I would be independent,” she says. “I was happy before she arrived, but what’s the point of making my home here if the quality of my life and health depends on her being reasonable. In any case, no one in their right mind will buy my flat. I’m required by law to tell prospective purchasers about trouble with neighbours.”

So for the time being, Daisy just hopes and prays her noisy neighbour will move.

Note: The name has been changed for this article.