London Borough of Hackney (202415271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415271

London Borough of Hackney

22 August 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:
   1. The resident’s reports of ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise.
   2. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has depression, anxiety, and limited mobility. The resident has a representative and for the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and his representative as the ‘resident.’
3. From the landlord’s records, we have seen evidence of it updating the resident on 29 September 2023 regarding his concerns about its out of hours team. And again, on 10 October 2023 in relation to his transfer request.
4. The resident made a further noise report against the neighbour on 2 November 2023. The landlord met with the neighbour on 6 November 2023. The notes from the meeting evidence that the landlord had put the allegations forward to the neighbour, but the neighbour disputed them. The neighbour also made counter allegations. In a follow up email to the neighbour the landlord referred to its mediation service and asked them to let it know if they were interested.
5. In an internal email dated 28 November 2023, the landlord confirmed that the case was open. It said a noise officer had been conducting regular visits but they had not observed any noise. It referred to separate incidents which involved the safer neighbourhoods team and regular patrols by the police. It said that those parties had not observed anything. It said it had written to the resident regarding this. It said it had conducted a professionals meeting and brought the resident’s case to its social priority panel. It confirmed the move was subsequently declined as the police found no imminent risk of harm. The landlord said it had informed the resident of this.
6. In a separate internal email at the time, the landlord noted that the resident was hypersensitive to noise. It said it asked the resident if he would like support from external agencies such as social services and the resident stated, “that he was ok”.
7. The resident submitted his formal complaint on 18 February 2024. The resident said he had been reporting ASB at antisocial hours which was everyday between 11pm and 4am. He said the landlord never bothered to follow up. He referred to the previous day in which there was DIY noise, screaming, and water thrown in the communal areas. He said it started during the day and went on until 4am without pause. He said that was a perfect opportunity for the landlord to finally attend and witness his neighbours, but nobody turned up.
8. The resident said no-one in the ASB team answered his calls and his officer had not done their job for years. He said his officer called once every 5 to 6 months but then never followed up. The resident said the officer would call but only let it ring for 3 seconds before hanging up. The resident said he was a venerable man with physical and mental health issues and the landlord had let him down. He said he wanted the landlord to apologise, fix the issues, and look into the work logs of its staff members.
9. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024. It said the following:
   1. It had reviewed the concerns raised and the case notes showed that his ASB officer had attempted to make contact with the resident on 3 occasions since 3 January 2024. It said the officer had also communicated with the resident twice via email. The landlord said the officer refuted the allegation that they only let the phone ring 3 times before hanging up. It said it was not in a position to verify if that was case. But it accepted that the officer had made valid attempts to contact him.
   2. The landlord said it expected the ASB officer to make contact at least every 2 weeks and it could not see any record of the officer doing so between 19 January 2024 and 6 February 2024. It said that was a service failure and apologised.
   3. It said there were a limited number of officers allocated to deal with reports of noise nuisance during the night. It said the out of hours team operated between Thursday and Sunday until 2am. The landlord said they had to prioritise visits to reported incidents of statutory noise nuisance over other types of noise such as DIY, thuds, and bangs. It said it had now asked that should there be sufficient resource, for the resident to be prioritised over any other non-statutory noise visits. It said it did not consider there to be a service failure but apologised for any inconvenience caused.
   4. It had discussed a number of actions with the resident to progress the investigation. These included the resident providing video evidence of recent noise nuisance, the possibility of injunction proceedings which it would update the resident on by 8 March 2024, writing to the neighbour, and copying the ASB team manager into emails to the ASB officer.
10. The landlord discussed the resident’s case at its ASB action panel on 6 March 2024, at which it was agreed that there was no evidence of any deliberate noise nuisance. The ASB action panel is a monthly meeting attended by housing services, community safety, police, health professionals and legal services.
11. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 18 March 2024. He said he was still not receiving contact from his ASB officer and the case had not progressed. The resident said he could barely sleep as a result of the ongoing non-stop noise. The resident said the landlord was supposed to have installed a noise machine. The resident questioned how the landlord’s lawyer would obtain proof without anyone from the landlord witnessing the noise. The resident asked for the landlord to move him to be kept safe from the harassment and to offer compensation for its staff failures.
12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 May 2024. It outlined the action it had taken from June 2022 to date. These included:
    1. Door knocking exercises to establish if other neighbours had experienced the noise, which it said they had not.
    2. It said the safer neighbourhood team, along with the police had attended on a number of occasions. It said they did not hear the noise or had found that the alleged perpetrator was not home.
    3. It installed a noise recording machine on 10 May 2023 and it did not note any statutory noise nuisance.
    4. It said the ASB officer encouraged mediation but the resident did not accept the offer.
    5. It said it referred the case to its senior lawyer on 28 July 2023 who confirmed there was a lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations. It said the case was discussed again in April 2024 and the senior lawyer confirmed that there was still a lack of evidence for an injunction.
    6. It said it offered an independent witness to sit in the property on 5 consecutive evenings but the resident did not feel comfortable with that.
    7. It said the community safety team had increased patrols in the area to attempt to witness any noise from the neighbour. It said it had advised the resident that it was not always possible for the community safety team to visit following every report and the priority was to investigate statutory noise nuisance. It said the team had conducted several visits but they did not witness any noise.
    8. The landlord said it had contacted the resident on a regular basis and provided updates in relation to the action taken to support his allegations.
13. The landlord concluded that there was no fault against it. It said the case remained open and it continued to discuss it at its ASB action panel, despite acknowledgement that there was no evidence to support his case. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £80 in recognition of its failure.
14. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the ASB was ongoing and although there were open cases, it was impossible to have a conversation with anyone who could help. The resident said he wanted the landlord to solve the ASB and to move him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

15. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which seek to raise matters which we have already decided upon. Therefore, we will only consider the landlord’s actions from 12 September 2023. This is when the landlord provided an update as part of a previous determination (202110599) which we made following a complaint from the resident about the landlord. The update concluded that the noise was day to day movements and was not a statutory nuisance. It said the only remaining option was to either employ a professional witness or pay an officer overtime to sit in the flat for 5 evenings to witness the alleged noise.
16. As stated, the resident has raised previous complaints with the landlord which have been investigated by this Service. The most recent case we determined was case reference 202431407. The scope of that investigation was from the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response in this investigation, which was 29 May 2024. Therefore, any events which have taken place after the stage 2 response have not been investigated as part of this report. This is to ensure we do not adjudicate on the same matters twice.
17. The resident raised issues in his stage 2 escalation which were not part of his formal complaint. While the landlord confirmed it had dealt with some of the issues as part of separate complaints, the Ombudsman also cannot consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this investigation will only focus on the concerns raised in the resident’s formal complaint and which were then escalated to stage 2. Reference to any other reports made will be for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing ASB and noise

18. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
19. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek corroborative evidence in line with its ASB policy. For example, the landlord encouraged the resident to provide evidence of the ASB/noise via recordings and then considered those recordings. The landlord also liaised with the alleged perpetrator and other relevant parties. Additionally, it suggested someone attend the resident’s address for 5 consecutive evenings to witness the noise. It also put the resident’s request for a move to its social priority panel.
20. A court would expect the landlord to show that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action and work with other teams and agencies such as the police. The evidence demonstrates that it has offered mediation to the resident and his neighbour, sent warning letters, and liaised with other relevant agencies in this case.
21. The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with its legal department to consider if it had sufficient evidence to proceed, which they confirmed it did not.
22. Part of the resident’s complaint was about his ASB officer’s lack of contact and not allowing the phone to ring for long when they called. In its stage 1 response the landlord reasonably explained how it had investigated the matter with the officer and that it could not verify whether the officer had allowed the phone to ring for a reasonable length of time. It clarified its expectation for the officer to contact the resident at least every 2 weeks and apologised for the time in which they failed to do so.
23. The Ombudsman has considered that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the allegations made. It liaised with the officer in question and put forward its findings to the resident. It aimed to put right the failure by confirming its expectations in regard to communicating with the resident.Italso asked the resident to copy the team manager into all emails to the ASB officer in future.
24. The landlord stated that the ASB officer should have been contacting the resident every 2 weeks. While it identified one occasion in which the officer did not do so, we have not been provided with evidence of the ASB officer contacting the resident every 2 weeks from 29 September 2023 onwards. This is a further failure which the landlord should have accounted for.
25. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident continued to report a lack of contact from his ASB officer and stated that the officer had still not adhered to the 2 week timeframe to update the resident. The landlord’s records state that due to ongoing complaints about the officer, the landlord re-assigned the resident’s ASB officer on 23 May 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the ongoing concerns in its stage 2 response.
26. To conclude, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise. Ultimately, despite the landlord’s investigations into the matter which were in line with its policy, there was no clear evidence of noise nuisance. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord could not take further action against the neighbour. While the evidence did not justify formal legal action, the landlord’s records show that it continued to investigate the reports and monitor the situation.
27. The service failure was because the landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings in relation to its communication with the resident. Its lack of acknowledgement of this in its stage 2 response appeared dismissive and it did not consider the likely impact caused to the resident. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord must pay the resident £100 to put right its failure. This amount is in line with failures which would not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but where the landlord failed to fully put it right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

28. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within 8 working days which was reasonable. It provided its stage 2 response 49 working days after the stage 2 escalation which was not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised for its failing. It offered a total of £80 for the failure, which was in line with its compensation policy.
29. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord appropriately acknowledged where there was a delay in its complaint response and offered a proportionate amount of compensation for that failure.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

32. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 for the communication failure identified in this report.
33. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should re-offer the £80 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already been paid to the resident.