London Borough of Hackney (202404439)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404439

London Borough of Hackney

31 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block.
  2. The resident does not dispute that he first made ASB reports in September 2023 about a new neighbour and landlord’s housing ASB team confirmed it had opened an ASB case on 12 September 2023. He made a further report on 18 September 2023. This involved an incident after 10pm of loud banging, aggressive shouting and swearing. He said this was witnessed by other residents, and that the neighbour needed to be removed for his wellbeing and safety as well as their own. He does not dispute the landlord contacted him on 19 and 22 September 2023 about its investigation. It says it also tried to contact the neighbour around this time but was unsuccessful.
  3. The resident made a further report on 17 October 2023 of an incident involving ranting and disturbance before 8am. He indicated that an incident had also occurred at the weekend. He raised concerns that he and other neighbours could not put up with the neighbour much longer. The landlord says the resident was allocated a new housing ASB officer the same month, who the resident does not dispute spoke to him.
  4. In December 2023, the landlord says the resident was allocated another new housing ASB officer. It says the housing ASB officer spoke to the resident on 7 December 2023, where he said ASB had reduced, and on 19 December 2023, where he said there had been no incidents since the last contact. He does not dispute this. The housing ASB officer spoke to the resident again on 3 January 2024 and told him that the ASB case would be closed, as there were no new incidents. The ASB case was closed on 17 January 2024, after he had reported intimidating behaviour from his neighbour on 5 January 2024, and a further incident on 16 January 2024.
  5. On 13 February 2024, the resident reported a further noise incident, for which police attended. The same day, he made a complaint. He raised dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled his ASB reports. He said it had failed to act despite numerous reports from him and his neighbours in the past 6 months.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 March 2024. It detailed events and noted the ASB case was closed on 17 January 2024 after a call on 3 January 2024. It acknowledged the investigation was fragmented due to staff changes, but it noted there was communication throughout, and that the case was closed after a period without incidents. It said it could revisit the case if there were still issues.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. He raised dissatisfaction with the level of handover when his case was reassigned to new staff. He raised dissatisfaction with the case closure on 17 January 2024 and lack of response to further reports on 5 and 16 January 2024 and 13 February 2024. He raised concerns about the impact of the ASB on him, his family and other neighbours. He asked the landlord to review the case and consider eviction and involvement of mental health professionals.
  8. The landlord internally discussed the case and referred it to the wider ASB team. On 28 March 2024, the ASB team completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident. This included actions for the resident to maintain incident logs and for the ASB team to contact the alleged perpetrator and other departments/agencies.
  9. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 April 2024. It noted it had closed the ASB case on 17 January 2024 when it had received new reports, and not taken action after these and further incidents in February 2024. It apologised for these failings. It confirmed the case was now assigned to the ASB team, detailed actions they had taken, and said they would take any further enforcement action where necessary. It awarded £210, which comprised £100 for service failures, £90 for delays taking ASB action, and £20 for a delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
  10. The evidence shows that from around this time, the ASB team wrote to the alleged perpetrator and their landlord, contacted the local authority temporary accommodation team, contacted other partner agencies, and maintained contact with the resident. The landlord says the resident’s neighbour was subsequently evicted in March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has been previously informed that our investigation focuses on events up until 4 April 2024, when the landlord provided its final response to this complaint. If he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling after April 2024, he has the option to make a new complaint to the landlord, and to refer it to us for separate investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if ASB occurred, or decide what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. The Ombudsman assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and whether it followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances. In this case, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling, so this assessment considers if its response reasonably remedied the complaint.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. Following the resident’s reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to his concerns and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies. For example, contact the resident, discuss the case with the alleged perpetrator and neighbours, contact and monitor the situation with other agencies, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
  4. The resident does not dispute that the landlord was in contact with him on a number of occasions. This shows it was responsive to his reports from September 2023, monitored matters, and ensured some handover of his case when there were staff changes. However, its actions between September 2023 and March 2024 were otherwise limited on the evidence seen.
  5. The landlord’s policies confirm it will discuss any antisocial behaviour with relevant parties to encourage this to cease. It says it tried to contact the neighbour, but it is not evident it tried other means such as writing to them. There were some complexities in the case, including that it did not have a direct relationship with the neighbour. This should have been of some consideration for how it responded to the initial reports. It is not evident that it identified and contacted other relevant parties in the case. The resident referred to other affected residents, but it is not evident that it took steps to interview other residents.
  6. The landlord’s actions from September 2023 to January 2024 appear to have simply been to log the ASB and discuss the reports with the resident, rather than any substantial action. It is not satisfactory it does not show it did more to investigate and intervene for the initial reports, such as create an action plan and write to the neighbour and their landlord. These did not happen until after the complaint and 6 to 7 months later. It is not clear this significantly impacted matters overall, as formal enforcement action such as eviction can be a complex and lengthy process. However, this meant there was an unnecessary delay in some actions.
  7. Therefore, while the landlord was positive to acknowledge issues with how it handled the resident’s January and February 2024 reports, in the Ombudsman’s view it did not go far enough to acknowledge the issues with its prior handling. It also did not show it identified all relevant learning to improve its future service. Its handling will have undermined the resident’s confidence, led him to feel unsupported and caused some distress. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about ASB.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £90 in recognition of the issues identified with its handling. This is in addition to the £210 it awarded, which it should pay if it has not already.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Consider its housing management staff training needs, and ensure they are sufficiently aware of processes and intervention tools for ASB reports they are dealing with, rather than the main ASB team.
    2. Consider lessons it could learn for similar cases, for how its housing management team handles ASB reports from tenants or leaseholders about individuals who have another landlord, or have been placed in their accommodation by another department.