Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Hackney (202446981)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446981

London Borough of Hackney

15 September 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. He has lived at the property, which is a flat within a 5-storey block, since 2013.
  2. The resident made anti social behaviour (ASB) reports to the landlord on 2 December and 13 December 2024. His reports related to noise disturbance from the property above. The landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the resident’s reports. On 20 December 2024, the resident requested a call back from the landlord’s Housing Officer.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 January 2025. He said he was unhappy with its handling of his reports of ASB. He complained that its Housing Officer had failed to call him back.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 February 2025. It said it had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports in December 2024. It acknowledged it had failed to call him back and apologised. It said it had received no further reports of ASB from the resident, but it had requested its ASB team to log his case and start an investigation.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 March 2025 and said he still hadn’t had a call back regarding his case. He explained his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling and response to his reports of ASB. He complained that his neighbour had laminate flooring which had been installed without planning permission in 2015.The resident said the landlord was supposed to take legal action about the laminate flooring when he first raised the matter after it was installed.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 May 2025. It acknowledged failings in its handling. It offered compensation totalling £110, which included £60 for complaint handling failures. The landlord explained what actions it had taken regarding his ASB reports and his concerns regarding the laminate flooring. It said it would update him when it received further information.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He requested the landlord enforce the removal of the laminate flooring from the above flat.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. Our Scheme states we may not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint with the landlord in a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. In his correspondence with us and the landlord, the resident raised issues that occurred in 2015. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 2 December 2024 and 7 April 2025. This being the date of the first issue that gave rise to the complaint that was raised with the landlord, through to when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
  4. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether the any party was responsible for ASB or noise nuisance. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord was in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.

  1. The resident made reports of ASB on 2 December 2024 and 13 December 2024. He said there was excessive noise from the property above his, which he described as noise from hammering and banging. The resident also said his neighbour had been dragging furniture and slamming doors. He said their laminate flooring was contributing to the noise disturbance. The landlord told the resident on both occasions it would speak to the neighbour.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it has a duty to investigate noise complaints. It says the way it responds depends on the nature of the problem, the time it happened and whether it is a first-time complaint or a recurring problem. Its policy also states it will assess each report to decide whether ASB has occurred. It says before it makes this decision it will gather evidence by contacting the person who is said to have behaved in an antisocial way.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that some behaviour, even though it may cause a nuisance to individuals, may not be regarded as meeting the definition of ASB. Its policy provides examples of the types of noise that would not be considered ASB, such as infrequent and occasional noise disturbance and noise from domestic appliances.
  4. In accordance with the landlord’s policies, it was appropriate for the landlord to wish to speak to the neighbour before it categorised the resident’s reports as ASB, and in order to inform its future actions. However, the landlord has not provided contemporaneous notes which were made following its meeting with the neighbour, or how it handled and assessed the resident’s reports.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2024 to report his neighbour was making noise again. The resident described the noise as banging. The resident said it sometimes happened at 4am. He asked for a call back from the landlord.
  6. There is no evidence which shows any of the landlord’s staff contacted the resident as requested. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord reported back to the resident on the outcome of its discussions with the neighbour or whether it considered the resident’s previous reports as amounting to evidence of ASB. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy to assess each report made to it and to decide whether ASB has occurred. The landlord’s failure to call the resident back or update him on the outcome of its enquiries was likely to have resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 January 2025 by email. He complained about ongoing noise disturbance from the above property. He described this as deliberate and said the noise was unbearable. He said the landlord was meant to take legal action in 2015, as neighbour did not have planning permission from it to install laminate flooring. The resident also complained about the way his reports were handled in December 2024 and said he had not received a call back as requested. He provided a noise log for the period 2 December 2024 to 3 January 2025.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2025 chasing a response to his complaint. Within his email, he said the noise disturbance was still ongoing, but the landlord had taken no action regarding it.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 February 2025. It explained it had contacted his neighbour on 2 separate occasions in December 2024 regarding the reported noise disturbance. It said this was its normal response in such matters and it considered it had taken appropriate actions. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to call the resident back in December 2024 and apologised for this. It clarified it had not received any further reports of noise nuisance but had requested its ASB team begin a formal investigation.
  10. The evidence shows the landlord’s response was inaccurate in its recollection of the reports made by the resident. It failed to identify the resident had reported ongoing noise disturbance in January and February 2025. As such its response incorrectly stated the resident had not reported further incidents. The landlord’s response also failed to address the concerns the resident had raised about laminate flooring being installed in the neighbour’s property.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2025. He said he had not had a call back following his request in December 2024. He complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports and requested it take immediate against his neighbour for making ongoing excessive noise. The resident said in his opinion, 50% of the noise was caused by the neighbour having laminate flooring. He reiterated the neighbour did not have permission to install laminate flooring and asked for the landlord remove it. The resident said the landlord had previously said it would take legal action to remove the flooring in 2015.
  12. The resident also requested compensation because the landlord had failed to resolve the issues he raised. He provided the landlord with a noise log covering the period 4 January 2025 to 1 March 2025.
  13. The resident provided further noise logs to the landlord on 21, 27 and 31 March 2025. These covered the period 4 March 2025 to 31 March 2025.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 April 2025. It acknowledged failings in the way its ASB team handled a call in December 2024 and for failing to call the resident back. It did not find any fault in the way it responded to the residents reports of ASB in December 2024. The landlord offered compensation of £50.
  15. In its response, the landlord explained in accordance with its policy, it could only investigate issues that had occurred within 12 months of being reported. It said the resident’s most recent noise log submissions had been forwarded to its ASB team. In addition, the landlord said it had raised the issue of the presence of laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property with its relevant department and was awaiting an update on what it would do about the matter. It said once it had received updates regarding both issues, it would provide these to the resident. The landlord said the information it could provide regarding the laminate flooring issue may be restricted due to ‘data protection’.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2025 to tell him it had opened an ASB case on 6 May 2025. The evidence shows the resident had reported incidents of noise disturbance on 20 December 2024 and during January, February, March, and April 2025. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action to investigate these reports at the material time.
  17. There is no evidence to explain the delay in the landlord taking action to investigate the resident’s reports. The failure to address each report as it happened, was not in line with its policy which required it to investigate noise complaints and all reports of ASB. The delay caused the resident inconvenience and frustration over several months, as the landlord took no observable action to address the reported disturbances.
  18. The resident told usthat he has not received an update from the landlord regarding his concerns about laminate flooring being installed in his neighbour’s property. We have seen no evidence the landlord has obtained or provided an update to the resident. It is unreasonable that the landlord has not provided the resident with an update as promised in its stage 2 response or provided an explanation for any delay.
  19. In addition to an absence of investigation into the matters reported by the resident, the evidence shows a number of failings such as not calling the resident back or providing progress on the resident’s case. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord and will have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaints process and the provision of its service. It also left the resident unaware of whether the landlord considered the reported issues as amounting to ASB under its policy and what actions, if any, it would take to address this.
  20. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  21. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and compensated some of its failures in December 2024. However, it did not identify any failings with its handling or response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in 2025. This meant the resident’s complaint remained unresolved.
  22. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 for the failures it identified. In this situation, the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failings, and it has done little to resolve the complaint in a reasonable manner for the resident.
  23. The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration. An order for £600 compensation has been made for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident complained on 3 January 2025. In line with the landlord’s policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It should have then responded within 10-working days of its acknowledgment. However, it did not respond to the complaint until 25 February 2025, 37 working days after the resident first complained. During this time, the resident had to contact the landlord on at least 3 occasions to chase its response, causing him time and trouble.
  2. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response. It said the delay was due to it waiting for an update from its ASB team. It said it received the complaint on 7 January 2025.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 March 2025. He said the date of his original complaint was actually 3 January 2025, and as a result the landlord’s response was 22 days overdue.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint escalation on 10 March 2025 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 April 2025. This was within the timescales of its policy.
  5. In its response the landlord acknowledged the resident emailed its complaints team on 3 January 2025. It said it logged the complaint on 7 January 2025, which was within 3 working days. It considered this was a reasonable timescale. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in its stage 1 complaint response and apologised. It offered the resident £60 compensation.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response. Its offer of £60 compensation was in line with an amount which would be calculated using our remedies guidance where there has been a failure that caused a resident time and trouble. The amount offered by the landlord reasonably reflected the delay in its complaint responses and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of the effect of its failings on the resident. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of noise disturbance. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its internal complaints process.
    2. Provide an apology to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report.
    3. Provide the resident with an update regarding his neighbour’s laminate flooring and what action, if any, it will take and the reasons for this.
  2. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £60 it offered for failings in its complaint handling.