Bent Council: Washing machine noise

Beginning in the late 1980s, the sound of a machine could be heard operating late at night, often after midnight, while I was in bed

24th July 2008 « Nasty neighbour
Revised: 27-1-09
[Published originally in January 2008]
Documents from Brent Council are quoted here either whole or in part to establish context.

Awash with unwanted sound

I thought this sound was coming from just outside my bedroom and I used get up to have a look through the window, but I never saw anything out there. The sound would continue for several minutes or so, with a break of aUntil about 1990 I only heard this sound at night when I was in bed longer span. This pattern could last for an hour or more and it was quite loud, of about the same intensity as a small car engine running under a fairly light load just outside the window. During this period until about 1990 I only heard this sound at night when I was in bed, and continued to believe it came from outside my bedroom window.
After a while, this sound could be heard during the daytime as well as at night. It was loudest in my kitchen, and this is when it became apparent it was a washing machine because both the pattern of operation and sound produced was broadly similar to that of my own washing machine. The cycles appeared to be about 45-55 minutes or so, when the machine would complete a load of washing, be reloaded and start all over again.

Establishing the source

By the early 1990s, I had established the source of this sound to be the flat occupied by nfh because it was at its loudest in my kitchen, with just a slight decrease in intensity in my bedroom and hallway. It was at its least intrusive in both my living room and bathroom, the two areas of my home furthest away from the kitchen of nfh (the area where they appear to have installed their washing machine). During those periods when it was audible, this noise was not apparent in the communal hallway directly outside my flat, I established the source of this sound to be the flat occupied by nfhor outside on my balcony.
My living room, kitchen and bedroom share a similar west-facing aspect, with all three rooms in a row in the order given here. If this noise had been coming from the area outside the windows of my living room, kitchen and bedroom, there would have been a broadly similar level of sound in these three rooms but with a noticably reduced level in both my bathroom and in my hallway with all doors leading to the other three rooms closed (these two areas of my home do not share the same aspect as the other three).
Assuming a similar level of sound, if this noise were coming from those areas of the building on either end of my flat (through the party wall of both my living room and my bedroom), but from within the building containing the flats and not from her flat, it would be heard only in those areas of my flat closest to those flats on either side of mine and I would have been almost unaware of it in those areas of my flat furthest away from the source.

Living beneath a factory

By 2000, it was apparent there were two distinct types of noisy machine in use by nfh; apart from the washing machine, there was another machine which produced a different operating pattern and at a slightly lower nuisance level. The pattern of this machine was a fairly loud pervasive drone which lasted for a few minutes, stopped for about a minute, then repeated this pattern. This could continue for about an hour or so, sometimes for several hoursIt was apparent there were two distinct types of noisy machine in use by nfh non-stop. It was not possible to detect the operation of the 'drone-producing' machine while the washing machine was operating because of the higher level of sound produced. With this 'drone machine', the pattern of intrusive noise heard throughout my flat was similar to that of the washing machine, with the exception that this drone sound was not heard in my living room.
By now, I was convinced nfh was conducting a commercial 'laundry service' because of the abnormal length of time these machines were used in a 24-hour period. My suspicions were bolstered in the late 1990s and early 2000s by the appearance of bundles of wire coat-hangers in the area near where the communal rubbish bins are stored and where residents leave items to be removed by the dustmen. On several occasions, I saw bundles of about 100 of these hangers lying on the floor in this area.

High nuisance factor

For many years, I tried to ignore this noise while in bed by reading, by listening to the radio, even covering my head with the bedclothes. None of this worked and, over the years, the sound of that machine slowly became more intrusive. Although my preferred volume level for the bedside radio never masked or reduced the intrusion of this sound, I have turned up the volume so that it drowned the sound of the machine, but this has served only to intensify the irritation caused by an increase in unwanted sound.It appeared to me that this was virtually the only sound I heard in my home
I have tried using those little earplugs supplied on airlines but even they were ineffective in reducing the noise to a less intrusive level. I was also wary of using them for extended periods for fear of damaging my hearing. The bloody irony of it!
I wasn't keeping a record or diary of the operation of this laundry equipment before 2002 but, from memory, this equipment was operating for many hours on end. Soon, it began to appear to me that this was virtually the only sound I heard in my home! Some days, it was going when I left my home and it was going when I returned hours later. Normally, at night before going to bed, I had to wait to determine whether nfh had finished their clothes washing operations. I waited for about 10-15 minutes, after a cycle had finished, to see if it was going to start again. If it didn't, I went to bed but sometimes I got it wrong and the washing machine started again shortly afterwards. When it started after I had gone to bed, sometimes I had to get up again and wait until it had stopped. It was not unusual to hear it going long past midnight. There have been occasions when I have been awoken from sleep by their use of this equipment.

Falling on deaf ears

In March 2001, I went to up to nfh to tell her I can hear what appeared to be a washing machine used late at night and I asked her if she could not use it at this time because it was interfering with my sleep. She didn't respond or make any comment on myI asked if she would not use it at night because it was interfering with my sleep concerns. I waited for an alteration in the pattern of usage to emerge during the next few weeks, but there was no change. This wasn't too surprising, however, due to their refusal to reduce the level of nuisance with their loud music in the 8 years prior to 1996 or the continued dropping of litter onto my balcony.
On 22-5-2001, I sent an e-mail to the Council employee Barbara Rowe at the local 'housing office', saying that noise from what appeared to be a washing machine is heard operating well into the night, usually after 11:00 p.m., in the flat of [nfh] and that it is causing nuisance to me and interferes with my sleep. I received no response from Rowe and there was no change in the usage pattern of this noisy laundry equipment.

Complaint to the Ombudsman

Failing to get Brent Council to resolve the nuisance presented by nfh, I complained to the Ombudsman in summer 2002. Because of the Ombudsman's intervention, the Council finally responded with a visit on 23-9-2002 from the Council employee Helen McKenzie, who described herself as a 'housing officer' with the Council's 'neighbour relations team' in Stonebridge. McKenzie refused to resolve the nuisance caused by this laundry equipment, citing ‘tenancy terms and conditions’.
In November 2002, I was contacted by the Council employee Catherine Taylor. She described herself as a 'housing officer' with the Council's 'neighbour relations team' and claimed to have investigated my complaints. She arrived at my address unannounced late in December 2002 and sat in my home for an hour or more telling me of the progress she had in combating anti-social behaviour in Stonebridge and of the problems she has with DVT on flights to and from Australia. The problems I was experiencing with the anti-social behaviour of nfh seemed, somehow, of little consequence.
One morning, within days of this visit, nfh came knocking on my door asking why I had made a complaint to the council about her use of a washing machine. I invited her into my bedroom so that she could hear for herself the noise I hear for many hours during the night. Here, I asked her if she could hear that sound, to which she answered, 'yes, it's my [she specified a type of] drier'. Nfh didn’t appear concerned, didn’t suggest she will take note of my concerns, didn’t suggest a compromise, and told me ‘you have a problem with my family’ I told her I can hear that sound when she uses that machine at night and that I can also hear the washing machine at night, too, and that it is much louder. These sounds cause a lot of nuisance to me, I told her, and asked if they would not use these machines at night.
She didn't appear concerned, didn’t suggest she will take note of my concerns, didn't suggest a compromise, and told me 'you have a problem with my family'. As she was now standing in a very private part of my home, I didn't feel comfortable having someone here knowingly who had caused so much nuisance and shown nothing but open hostility and contempt since the late 1980s. I wanted her to leave my bedroom quickly so that we could continue with whatever it was she had come to discuss with me. Because I had entered the room ahead of her, and she was standing near the narrow area leading out of it, to get past her, I would have brushed against her. To avoid this, I took a step towards her to indicate that she should leave the room. She ignored this and just stood there as though nailed to the floor. I said she should leave the room and we can continue outside but still she stood there, looking around the room. Impatiently, I gestured with both hands that she must leave. She left the room then, telling me 'you are harassing us' as she walked out of my home without closing the front door after her. I knew then I should not have invited her into my home because, for the second time, absolutely nothing was done to resolve the issues which needed to be addressed.
The involvement of the Council's 'neighbour relations team' resolved nothing because it is obvious from this response of nfh that McKenzie failed to raise the issue of nuisance from the inconsiderate use of laundry equipment. The involvement of Taylor achieved nothing but this angry approach of nfh shortly after Taylor's visit. Incomprehensibly, Taylor told me she could do nothing about this nuisance apart from simply relying on 'their good nature' to behave more considerately.
The diary I kept from late 2002 shows in stark detail the degree of nuisance posed by nfh with her use of laundry equipment throughout the course of a 24-hour period, a nuisance which continued for almost another four years (see A catalogue of nuisance).

Now, a quasi-agreement appears

Updated → 15-11-08
Apart from 'writing a letter' or relying on the 'good nature' of nfh, Brent Council effectively have failed to resolve this nuisance. On 9-4-2007, the tenant of nfh approached me to say she was aware of my complaints about her use of the washing machine at night, claiming she did not use it after 9:30 p.m. I showed her several recent pages of my diary recording its use at night. She agreed, however, not to use this equipment between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. A Council employee appeared at my door on 17-4-2007 saying she was investigating my complaint and that she was aware of the verbal agreement not to use this equipment between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
I sent the following e-mail to the Council's 'housing service' on 1-5-2007;

I am awaiting your summary of the agreement on the use of a washing machine which appears to have been accepted by the leaseholder's tenant at [the address of nfh]. Please state whether this agreement is accepted also by the leaseholder.

The purpose of this e-mail was to get written confirmation of this 'verbal agreement'. I received no response until I sent another e-mail dated 15-5-07 reminding them I required a response.
Finally, I received the following reply, published here unedited;

Brent Housing Partnership
Leasehold Management
Chancel House
Neasden Lane
London
NW10 2UF
4th June 2007
Dear Mr Leamy
RE: Unreasonable use of washing machine from flat [the address of nfh]
I refer to your email of 1st May 2007, asking for an agreement from the leaseholder of the above flat on the use of the washing machine.
When I visited you and the above flat, you both had already met and the resident (tenant) of [the address of nfh] had confirmed to me that she does not use the washing machine during the unsocial hours and on further discussion she again agreed she would not use from 9.30pm to 8am.
Under the circumstances, the verbal agreement from the tenant is reasonable and acceptable. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to involve the leaseholder of the above property.
I hope the above answers your query.
If you experience further problem then please do contact us.
Yours sincerely
Mrs P Shah
Leasehold Team Manager

Almost immediately, the agreement was broken on 28-6-2007, with continued frequent use of their laundry equipment after 9:30 p.m. even though their flat had been occupied for part or most of the day between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m.
Consequently, the council's refusal to involve the current leaseholder is absolutely unacceptable and I must have an agreement from the person described here as nfh, the current leaseholder, that laundry equipment will not be used between 9:30 p.m.–8:00 a.m.
Since summer 2006, I have made several telephone complaints to the Council's 'warden service'. One night, I was told they could do nothing about this nuisance and, on several occasions, the operation of this washing machine had stopped before these The use of the washing machine by the tenant of nfh posed a considerable nuisance after 9:00 p.m. wardens arrived. The washing machine was operating on one occasion when these wardens arrived at my address in 2007.
Although the level of nuisance presented by the tenant of nfh did not reach the levels presented by nfh herself, her tenant's use of the washing machine posed a considerable nuisance after 9:00 p.m. This nuisance was magnified because of the degree of inconsideration shown by nfh in her use of her laundry equipment prior to summer 2006. Consequently, I was determined never to be returned to the harassment of frequent nuisance from any resident at that address.
On 13-8-2008, the washing machine at the address of nfh was started just after 9:30 p.m., and had not been used earlier that day, despite their flat being occupied during most of the day. I telephoned the 'warden service' at 9:40 p.m., the wardens arrived at my home about half an hour later and confirmed this equipment was being used at the time of their visit. They told me the resident had told them she had agreed not to use this equipment from 10:30 p.m! Clearly, there is no intention of keeping to the verbal agreement this tenant offered in April 2007.
As a follow-up to this visit by the 'warden service' on 13-8-08, I addressed the following letter dated 19-8-08 to the Council's 'housing service'

Use of a washing machine during unreasonable hours at [the address of nfh]
I draw your attention to the agreement (attached) by the resident at [the address of nfh] not to use this equipment between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
A washing machine regularly is used at [the address of nfh] after 9:30 p.m. The Council is aware this equipment is situated close to my bedroom and its use outside the agreed period causes considerable nuisance to me.
When this equipment is used during unreasonable hours at that address, often it had not been used during the daytime hours when that property had been occupied for some or all of these daytime hours. This equipment often is not started until after 9:00 p.m., and this appears to be a deliberate violation of the agreement made by this resident. The tenancy conditions (2004) Part E (Using Your Home), section 17, sets out clearly as follows;
You, and anyone in your home must take reasonable care to make sure you do not use any audio equipment, TV, washing machine, power tool or other appliance in a way that might disturb your neighbours.
On 13-8-2008, the Council’s warden service was summoned at 9:40 p.m. and confirmed this equipment is being used outside the hours agreed. I understand the resident told these wardens the agreement was not to use this equipment between 10:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
To resolve this matter, show steps the Council take to ensure that
confusion related to the agreed no-use period of 9:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. is eliminated
this agreement is understood by both the Council’s leaseholder and their tenant
this nuisance does not continue

William Leamy
Encl. Agreement by this resident not to use laundry equipment between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

I attached a copy of the letter from the Council employee Shah dated 4-6-2007 (shown above) so that everyone was aware of precisely the times agreed when this washing machine would not be used.
I didn't receive a reply and delivered another letter dated 25-9-08 to this miserable bunch saying I had no response to my letter dated 19-8-08, and again setting out precisely the response I required;
I have asked the Council to show steps it took to ensure that—

this confusion related to the agreed no-use period of 9:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. is eliminated
this agreement is understood by both the Council’s leaseholder and their tenant
nuisance from this form of anti-social behaviour does not continue

I received the following letter from the Council;

Brent Town Hall
Forty Lane
Wembley
Middlesex
HA9 9HD
Chief Executive's Office
6th October 2008
Dear Mr Leamy
I have received your letter asking me to investigate your complaint about Brent Housing Partnership at the third and final stage of the complaints procedure.
I am sorry to hear that you are not happy with the outcome of your complaint at the second stage of Brent Housing Partnership's complaints procedure and I have asked Martin Stollery, one of the Council's complaint investigation officers, to look into the matter on my behalf. Mr Stollery may well contact you direct [sic] to discuss your complaint in greater detail but, if you have any additional information you would like taken into account during the investigation, please send it to Mr Stollery at the above address. You can also telephone him on 020 8937 XXXX or email him at [address given].
I hope to be able to complete my investigation by 6th November 2008 but, if there is likely to be a delay, Mr Stollery will contact you to let you know the revised timescale.
Yours sincerely
Gareth Daniel
Chief Executive
Copy to: Martin Stollery, complaint investigation officer

What's that smell? Watch this space!
Now, a few e-mails…
In an attempt to help this pathetic Council, I sent the following e-mail dated 13-10-2008 to this Martin Stollery at the address provided by Daniel in his letter published above:

I understand you are involved with my complaint regarding unreasonable of laundry equipment at [the address of nfh].
Apart from the comprehensive information in my letter to the Council dated 19-8-2008, and my chase dated 25-9-2008, you may find information on this Web page helpful – http://bentcouncil.blogspot.com/2008/07/neighbour-from-hell_24.html – direct your attention to the lower section of this page and the section headed 'Now, a quasi-agreement appears'.
William Leamy

I received the following e-mailed reply dated 20-10-2008:

Dear Mr Leamy
Thank you for your email.
I am of course also checking Brent Housing Partnership's (BHP's) records but I would be grateful if you could also confirm to me directly whether you contacted BHP or the warden service regarding noise caused by your neighbour's washing machine between 4th June 2007 and 13th August 2008 (the date you mentioned that a warden service visit took place) and between 13th August 2008 and the present.
If possible it would be helpful if you could indicate the actual or approximate dates of any contacts during those periods.
Yours sincerely
Martin Stollery
Complaints Investigation Officer
Policy and Regeneration Unit
Room 221
Brent Town Hall
Forty Lane
Wembley
Middx HA9 9HD

My e-mailed reply dated 21-10-2008 set out concisely the history of my recent complaints to the 'warden service':

I contacted the Council's warden service on a number of occasions between 3-4-06 and 17-2-07 because of unreasonable of the washing machine at [the address of nfh].
Your leaseholder's tenant came to me on 9-4-07 to deny she used the washing machine after 9:30 p.m. She agreed, however, not to use the washing machine between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. This agreement was confirmed by the Council's leasehold team manager in a letter to me dated 4-7-07.
But to address the subject of your e-mail dated 20-10-08, I contacted the Council's warden service after 9:30 p.m., as already you will be aware from records held by brent housing partnership and the warden service;
on 10-5-08, the service refused to investigate,
on 19-7-08, the service agreed to investigate. They claim to have visited [the address of nfh], that there was no response and they say the address was unoccupied,
on 13-8-08, I instructed this service to visit my address first. At my address, the washing machine was operating, and the wardens told me they could hear it operating. They went to the resident at [the address of nfh], who told the wardens the agreement of 9-4-07 was from 10:30 p.m.! As you can see, this is not true.

The use of the washing machine after 9:30 p.m. by the resident at [the address of nfh] has been more frequent than the instances of my contacting the warden service would suggest. I have not contacted the warden service since 13-8-08.
As you should be aware, I contacted the Council with a letter dated 19-8-08, asking that the Council show action it took to ensure the following;
1. confusion related to the agreed no-use period of 9:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. is eliminated,
2. this agreement is understood by both the Council’s leaseholder and their tenant,
3. this nuisance does not continue.
If you need further clarification, please contact me.
William Leamy

This is Stollery's e-mailed response dated 22-10-2008:

Dear Mr Leamy
Thank you for your email.
You refer to the warden service refusing to investigate your concerns on 10th May 2008.
Could I ask if you recollect the name of the officer you spoke to on this occasion and the reasons you were given for this refusal?
Yours sincerely
Martin Stollery

I e-mailed my response dated 22-10-2008:

I contacted the warden service on 10-5-08 at 9:40 p.m. The person who answered refused to investigate. He told me they could not investigate until after 11:30 p.m. He appeared to go away to confer with a colleague and returned to repeat his refusal to investigate.
I did not make a note of it, although he may have told me his name.
William Leamy

Daniel's summary

On 12-11-2008 I received the promised letter, dated 28-10-2008, from Brent Council summarising Daniel's findings. I publish here the last 4 paragraphs unedited:

Having reviewed the records of relevant action on this case, I consider BHP's ['brent housing partnership's'] handling of Mr Leamy's concerns to have been broadly reasonable. All of Mr Leamy's correspondence except for the letter he delivered on 20th August 2008 has been answered within a reasonable timescale and the available records indicate that the wardens responded appropriately to his concerns. A record should be made of every call to the warden service. Despite having double checked the relevant records, there is no record of Mr Leamy's call to the warden service on 10th May 2008. For the sake of clarification I should point out the advice Mr Leamy said he received would have been incorrect. There would have been no reason on that occasion why the warden service could not have investigated Mr Leamy's concerns if he telephoned at the time he said he did. However, there is no evidence to confirm that Mr Leamy was given any incorrect advice, so unfortunately I cannot comment further on this aspect of his complaint.
It is regrettable that although BHP contacted Mr Leamy's neighbour after receiving his letter dated 19th August 2008, Mr Leamy was not updated on progress as soon as he should have been. I will ask BHP to ensure this is done in similar circumstances in future. In this particular case Mr Leamy's letter of 19th August 2008 also carried a complaint reference number, so the Logs of telephone calls received by ‘brent housing partnership’ are tampered with, or deleted One Stop Service should have referred it to BHP's Standards and Procurement team in the first instance. I would like to apologise on behalf of the Council for this oversight. I will ask the One Stop Service to remind relevant staff to forward all correspondence bearing complaint reference numbers to the relevant complaints team in future.
Mr Leamy told Mr Stollery that the use of his neighbours washing machine at unreasonable hours has been more frequent than the instances of his contacting the wardens would suggest. I accept that different individuals have different levels of noise tolerance and that noise can have an adverse impact upon tenants or leaseholders. I am sorry this is the case for Mr Leamy. I return, however, to Ms Lawrence's letter of 12th March 2007 and Ms Shah's letter of 17th April 2007. Both Ms Lawrence and Ms Shah confirmed the terms of the lease which apply between the hours of 11pm to 7am. BHP ultimately has no power to require leaseholders or their tenants not to use washing machines outside these hours.
In Mr Leamy's case, however, BHP has some evidence that Mr Leamy and his neighbour agreed in April 2007 that the washing machine would not be used between 9.30pm and 8am. Given the extent of Mr Leamy's concern about this issue, it would now be reasonable for BHP to write to the leaseholder and tenant of his neighbour's flat within the next two weeks. BHP should explain Mr Leamy's concerns to the leaseholder and tenant of his neighbour's flat. BHP should explain that it has a record of a verbal agreement made in April 2007 that the washing machine would not be used between 9.30pm and 8am. As I have explained, BHP has no power to enforce any agreement made outside the terms of the lease, but a letter of this nature may contribute to some alleviation of Mr Leamy's concerns.

Through the Looking Glass

Is this incompetence?
In his letter dated 26-10-2008, (extract published here unedited) Daniel states:

19th July, 2008:
According to BHP's records, a report was made that Mr Leamy's neighbour's washing machine was making lots of noise. Wardens arrived at the location and rang the neighbour's intercom. They did not get any response. The wardens tried a few other flat numbers to gain entrance but they were not able to get a response from any of them and therefore could not gain access to the property.

On this date, I had telephoned the Council's 'warden service' at 10:40 p.m. to complain of the use of a washing machine at the address of nfh. The 'service' agreed to investigate immediately. The washing machine still was operating after about half an hour and I had no indication these 'wardens' had visited the address of nfh. I telephoned the 'service' again to ask on the progress of my telephone call earlier and was told that they did visit the neighbour's address but got no response and that the flat appeared to be unoccupied.
So, according to Daniel, these 'wardens' then attempted to gain access to the building by ringing other flat numbers, but that they didn't attempt to contact me or ring my flat intercom. It would have shown a higher level of initiative in these Council employees if they had actually tried to contact me, the complainant.
is this corruption?
In his letter dated 26-10-2008, (extract published here unedited) Daniel states:

10th May, 2008:
Mr Leamy said he contacted the warden service at 9.40pm and they refused to investigate his concerns. Mr Leamy said he was told they could not investigate until after 11:30 p.m. Mr Leamy said the person he spoke to appeared to confer with a colleague and returned to the telephone to repeat his refusal to investigate. Mr Leamy does not have a record of the name of the officer he spoke to.

In another section of this letter, published here unedited, Daniel says:

Despite having double checked the relevant records, there is no record of Mr Leamy's call to the warden service on 10th May 2008.

My telephone bill for the period March-May 2008 shows I made one telephone call to the Council's 'warden service' on 10-5-2008. This is not the first time 'brent housing partnership' claim to have no record of communication from me.
This incident provides further proof that all is not well within Brent Council, and that logs of telephone calls received by 'brent housing partnership' are tampered with, or deleted. Is this because of dishonest and incompetent management within the Council, fostered by an incredible complacency of its 'chief executive'? (see Rogue's Gallery). Daniel urgently must explain the missing record of the telephone call I made on 10-5-2008 to the Council's 'warden service'.

This thread is continued in A catalogue of nuisance.

Loud music nuisance Interfering with my telly Litter and filth A heavy-footed family Misusing their balcony Soiling my windows A neighbour from hell A catalogue of nuisance Hell twice over

Washing machine noise