London Borough of Hackney (202348222)

Decision
Case ID	202348222
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hackney
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat, within an 8-storey building. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident reported noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from several neighbour’s living within the building. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from neighbours.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from neighbours.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from neighbours.

While the landlord took a range of actions to address the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB, its handling was undermined by poor communication, delays, and failure to complete key steps such as risk assessments and action planning. While it acknowledged some failings during its own complaint investigation, it did not identify all of the failings we identified, did not fully address the detriment to the resident, and did not provide redress for the failings it did identify.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There were multiple failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, including delays and failure to escalate complaints when requested. The landlord’s offer of redress for complaint handling failure, put things right for the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB from neighbours. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	General order The landlord must offer to meet the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB and nuisance he is still experiencing from neighbours, complete a risk assessment, and agree a plan of action (with timescales) for addressing this.	No later than 15 January 2026
4	Learning Order The landlord must complete a learning review of its handling of this case. The landlord must present the findings from this review to its senior leadership team. And then send the resident and us, a summary of the review and explain any subsequent action it intends to take.	No later than 15 January 2026

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider paying the £600 compensation it previously offered the resident during its internal complaint process, for failures in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 October 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of noise and ASB from several neighbours. The resident acknowledged that the ASB from one of the neighbours had stopped. But suggested the landlord had taken little action concerning the noise and ASB from his 2 other neighbours, despite him providing evidence, attending meetings with the landlord, and intervention by multiple managers. He said the landlord had failed to install noise monitoring equipment, had dismissed noise app evidence he had provided, had been unsupportive, and had failed to secure a resolution.
26 November 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2, citing a lack of action.
12 December 2023	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response, outlining the actions it had taken to address the resident’s reports of ASB since August 2023. It acknowledged there had been some reduction in ASB and proposed further measures to substantiate ongoing issues. This included: Offering to install noise monitoring equipment in the property. Encouraging the resident to use its noise app. Gathering additional evidence through its own staff. Signposting the landlord to other agencies, with additional powers. Committing to consider tenancy enforcement action if problems persisted. Providing fortnightly updates to the resident The landlord asked the resident to get in contact if he was interested in using its noise app. It also asked the resident to provide dates for installing noise monitoring equipment.
27 December 2023 to 2 January 2024	The resident emailed the landlord twice, asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said the landlord was doing nothing to address the behaviour of his neighbours, which was affecting his wellbeing and was forcing him out of the property.
22 November 2024	We wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2024 asking it to issue the resident with a stage 2 complaint outcome, within 5 working days.
2 December 2024	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. It: Apologised for delays issuing the stage 1 complaint response, for which it offered £80 compensation. Apologised for delays acknowledging in escalating and addressing the complaint a stage 2, for which it offered £520 compensation. Outlined the actions it had taken to address the ASB. Accepted there had been a lack of action in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB since 28 May 2024. And admitted that it had failed to provide the residents with updates, for which it also apologised. Said it could not determine whether there had been fault in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB within the expected response timescale, and without speaking to him. But committed to arranging an internal meeting to determine the best course of action. Said it had not awarded any compensation in relation to its handling of the ASB. But would consider if there was scope to increase its offer compensation when it had spoken to the resident in the coming days. Committed to providing the resident with fortnightly updates.
3 December 2024	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint because he felt the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from neighbours.
Finding	Maladministration

It is unclear when the resident first reported noise nuisance and ASB. But the landlord’s initial advice to keep an incident diary until noise monitoring equipment could be installed was an appropriate step in managing the case.
The resident began recording disturbances in November 2022, capturing mainly television, washing machine, and general household sounds. Under its ASB policy, occasional or infrequent noise and excessive domestic appliance noise may not constitute ASB. It was reasonable that the landlord concluded in February 2023 that the evidence did not meet the ASB threshold and then closed the case. The landlord clearly communicated the need for further evidence before it would reconsider the case. In doing so, it managed the resident’s expectations appropriately.
In April 2023, the landlord acknowledged receiving 160 noise reports from the resident. It decided not to open a new ASB case as the reports were similar to previous ones. But committed to contacting the resident to discuss the reports and agree a course of action. This was reasonable in the circumstances and would have enabled it to identify any potential risk. However, the landlord failed to follow through on this commitment, leaving the resident unclear of its intentions. This inaction was inappropriate and delayed resolution of the matter for the resident.
The resident continued to submit noise reports over the following months. These reports were escalated to the landlord’s managers in July 2023 due to the high volume of reports received. This led to a new ASB case being opened and management instructions being given to carry out a risk assessment and manage the case on its merits. This was positive, in view of the landlord’s earlier inaction.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will, where possible, agree actions with residents to investigate reports. And will take a reasonable and proportionate approach to dealing with ASB, which will be reflected in the range of tools and powers it will use. This sets a clear expectation for collaborative case management and balanced decision-making.
The landlord took several steps to address the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB between 26 July 2023 (the date the new ASB case was opened) and 1 October 2023(the date the resident raised the stage 1 complaint). This included offering the resident its noise app to record disturbances, advising neighbours on ways to reduce noise, issuing warning letters to the neighbours (both of whom denied the allegations made), seeking updates from the resident, and a monthly case review under managerial oversight.
The landlord failed to complete a risk assessments instructed, or that it agreed a clear course of action with the resident in a timely manner. This was a failure to fully comply with its own procedures. And makes it difficult for us to conclude that the action taken by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case. Additionally, the landlord did not give the resident prior notice of its intention to issue warning letters to the neighbours, which may have been reasonably expected, given the potential for increased hostilities.
The landlord took a range of actions to address the resident’s ongoing reports of noise nuisance and ASB between 1 October 2023 (the date of the stage 1 complaint) and 2 December 2024 (when the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response). This included:
1. Gathering independent evidence to address the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, ASB, and subletting. It endeavoured to do this by carrying out unannounced visits, site inspections, and a door knocking exercise to identify potential witnesses.
2. Discussing allegations of noise nuisance and ASB with both neighbours, reminding them of their tenancy obligations, and issuing further written warnings. Both neighbours continued to deny the allegations made.
3. Checking that the neighbour’s carpets and underlay met the required standards and providing noise reduction materials (including door protectors, door insulation, and floor protectors). It also replaced a neighbour’s door, which would not close quietly.
4. Maintained periodic contact with the resident for updates, signposted him to external agencies who had additional powers, offered to install noise monitoring equipment in the property, and encouraged him to make use of its noise app. It was unfortunate that the resident was reluctant to use the noise app, which may have assisted the landlord’s investigation.
5. Carried out monthly case reviews with managers.
It is evident that the landlord had been proactive in its attempts to address the resident’s reports. But without evidence of it carrying out any risk assessments, it is difficult to determine that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged, during its own complaint investigation, there were gaps in its handling of ASB and in its communication with the resident. For example, it identified that while its ASB Officer spoke to the resident on 8 November 2023, it could not confirm any timely follow-up action. It also admitted delays and lack of updates after the resident emailed its Housing Transformation Complaints Team Leader on 28 May 2024, which it accepted would have caused the resident added frustration.
Our investigation further found:
1. Poor communication and avoidable delays between April 2024 and November 2024 in relation to the scheduling and installation of noise monitoring equipment, which created avoidable inconvenience for the resident. And made the resident question how serious the landlord was in finding a resolution. It is unclear from the available evidence if noise monitoring equipment was ever installed.
2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will assess each ASB report and will provide additional support where needed. Yet there is little evidence that the landlord explored whether the resident required any individual support, despite him repeatedly referencing the impact the noise and ASB was having on his home life, work, and wellbeing. This was inappropriate and fell short of its policy obligations.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response, that it could not confirm fault regarding ongoing ASB or award compensation because discussions with the resident were incomplete. But said it would review its position after obtaining more information from the resident in the coming days, would develop an action plan for resolving the matter, and would provide fortnightly updates.
The landlord’s first fortnightly update referenced liaison with appropriate managers, as it had committed to do. It also outlined some actions that it had already taken and that it intended to take, to progress the matter. However, this did not amount to a clear action plan, as no indicative timescales were provided to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord informed us that it subsequently met the resident to review his additional evidence, which led to it revisiting the neighbours and issuing further warning letters. It clarified that these further actions meant that no additional compensation was paid. While these steps demonstrate some effort to address the issue of complaint, this did not happen until some months after the stage 2 complaint response was issued. This was unreasonable and unduly prolonged resolution of the matter.
The resident continues to report noise nuisance and ASB from neighbours. And remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB case.
Overall, the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB up to the point the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. And took a range of actions to address this. However, there were notable shortcomings in its handling of the ASB case over the timeframe of the complaint we have considered, including:
1. Poor communication and avoidable delays, particularly around scheduling and installing noise monitoring equipment.
2. Failure to complete risk assessments.
3. Missed opportunities to agree a clear action plan with the resident.
4. Lack of consideration as to whether the resident required additional support, given his repeated references to the impact on his home life, work life, and wellbeing.
The landlord acknowledged some gaps in its handling of ASB and inadequacies in its communication during its own complaint investigation, for which it apologised. However, it did not identify all of the failings we identified during our investigation. And it failed to address the detriment to the resident from those failings or offer any redress for the failures in its handling of the ASB.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from neighbours.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, pay £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident arising from those failings, and carry out a learning review to identify the causes of the failings and implement measures to prevent recurrence. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website), where there have been failures that had a significant impact on the resident, over a prolonged period.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are the 2022 and 2024 editions. The landlord had published complaints policies, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
This means the landlord had to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It had to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord was permitted to extend these response timescales by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, provided it explained to the resident why this was necessary.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 1 October 2023, which the landlord acknowledged within the expected response timescale. However, it did not issue the stage complaint 1 response until 12 December 2023, which was 41 working days later than the expected. This was a significant delay. If the landlord was unable to meet the target deadline, it should have sought an extension and kept the resident informed, in line with its policy.
The resident was caused avoidable inconvenience by having to chase the landlord for the stage 1 complaint outcome. When the resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 26 November 2023, the landlord did not escalate the complaint because its ASB team was still attempting to resolve the matter at stage 1. While this may have been well-intentioned, it should have agreed this with the resident. There is no evidence that it did. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge the delay or offer any redress within the stage 1 complaint response.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 27 December 2023 and again on 2 January 2024. But the landlord failed to act, resulting in the complaint not being acknowledged. The landlord later accepted this was a failure and apologised.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 27 November 2024 following our intervention. It committed to issuing the final stage 2 complaint response by 2 December 2024, in line with our request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2024 asking if he would agree to an extension, explaining that it wanted to obtain more information from him before issuing its decision. Ultimately, the landlord decided to issue the stage 2 complaint response later the same, using the information already available to it day, as it did not hear back from the resident and it wanted to ensure compliance with our request.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response, that there had delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 complaint, for which it offered £80 compensation. It offered an additional £520 compensation for further complaint handling failures it identified at stage 2, including not acting on his escalation request. This compensation was at the higher end of compensation that we would have ordered for such failings and put things right for the resident.
Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A recommendation is made for the landlord to consider paying the £600 compensation it previously offered, forfailings in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.

Learning

We have identified the following learnings, for the landlord’s consideration:
1. Risk assessments are critical for identifying vulnerability and tailoring responses to individuals experiencing ASB. The landlord should consider embedding a process to ensure risk assessments are completed and fully documented at the start of any ASB case. And are then kept under regular review with the resident until case closure.
2. Action plans should include specific steps, timescales, and responsibilities, and be shared with the resident to manage expectations and maintain transparency. The landlord may benefit from developing a standard template for future actions plans, to guide aid its staff.
3. Staff should be trained to identify and respond to indicators of distress raised by residents. The landlord should consider why it did not explore whether the resident required additional support or signposting to support services. And identify any knowledge gaps.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We were able to determine this case based on the information provided by the parties. However, there were gaps in the landlord’s evidence. For instance (not an exhaustive list), the landlord did not provide us with the minutes from meetings it had with managers, following issue of the stage 2 complaint response. It did not provide us with a record of its subsequent meeting with the resident, so we cannot determine what was agreed. And it does not appear to have documented at the time, its reasons for not awarding additional compensation.
Landlords should keep a robust record of their actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request. Landlords who fail to record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that their actions were inadequate or wrong and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

The landlord has itself identified there were gaps in its communication with the resident, as referenced earlier in this report.