London Borough of Hackney (202314143)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314143

London Borough of Hackney

14 January 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 how the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a ground floor 2-bed flat. In July 2021 the resident reported that his neighbour was making excessive noise. The landlord investigated this, and then closed the related case down in December 2021 as it considered the evidence only indicated “everyday noise”.
  2. The resident made further reports of a similar nature in early 2022. The landlord communicated with the resident intermittently about this over the following months. On 4 November 2022 it installed Noise Recording Equipment (NRE) within the property so he could document the alleged nuisance. It collected the NRE on 28 November 2022. There was little progress following this until 2 March 2023 when the landlord contacted the resident to advise it could not no longer access the NRE files and that it had opened a new ASB case to investigate the noise.
  3. Both parties continued to communicate about the noise over the next 2 months but did not reach any resolution. On 8 May 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his noise reports since 2021. He explained he wanted the landlord to implement ASB training for its staff, provide an apology from the staff involved in his case, and for it to issue a “restraining order” against his neighbour.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It acknowledged that there had been significant delays in its handling of his reports. It also acknowledged that it missed deadlines and communicated poorly with him. It apologised for this, and committed to: provide fortnightly updates, interview the neighbour, analyse noise recordings, and issue an apology from staff members involved in his case.
  5. The resident continued to make further noise reports throughout the following weeks. On 18 August 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because he was unhappy with how long the landlord had taken to address his outstanding reports.
  6. On 19 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It outlined the actions it had taken in relation to his reports including issuing a yellow warning letter to the neighbour, and interviewing them. It explained that it had inspected the neighbour’s flat and relayed some observations on some material features that could be causing noise. It noted the resident had recently advised that the noise had ceased, and that he should get back in touch if it resumed.
  7. However, it also recognised it had unreasonably delayed in opening the 2nd ASB case and poorly communicated with the resident about his reports. It recognised that this caused him distress and inconvenience. To put this right it offered him £400 in compensation.
  8. The resident replied on 20 September 2023 and explained that he accepted the landlord’s analysis and apology, but requested a personal apology from the staff involved. He also asked what a “yellow warning” letter was. He noted again that the neighbour was not currently causing any noise nuisance and thanked the landlord for its time and effort. He refused the £400 compensation offered.
  9. On 11 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and explained that he was unhappy with its handling of his complaint. He disagreed with the explanations it offered as to what may be causing noise in the neighbour’s flat. He explained that DIY noise had been coming from the neighbour’s flat earlier that month. He asked the landlord to provide further information about the layout of the neighbour’s property. He also chased the personal apology and asked for clarification about the warning letter.
  10. On 20 October 2023 the landlord issued an apology letter to the resident from the staff involved in his cases. On 23 October 2023 it emailed him and addressed some of the queries and comments he raised in his 11 October 2023 email. It addressed the remaining queries on 16 November 2023. As part of this response it declined to provide any further information about the neighbour’s flat layout due as it considered doing so would breach his privacy. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s position on his outstanding concerns. He referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 November 2023.
  11. Over the next several months the resident continued to make noise reports. He also continued to complain about the explanations the landlord offered related to the layout and structure of the neighbour’s property and how this may lead to noise. The landlord offered to install NRE in the property to gather more evidence on several occasions which the resident refused each time.
  12. On 2 April 2024 the landlord engaged with the neighbour and offered to financially assist them in purchasing a rug for their hallway as mitigation against potential noise nuisance. On 5 April 2024 the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case because it had no evidence to show that the noise reported qualified as nuisance noise. It noted that it had offered to install NRE to give the resident the opportunity to provide such evidence which he had refused.
  13. The resident is unhappy with this as he considers the landlord should have taken some kind of enforcement action against his neighbour. To resolve his complaint, he would like it to do so and to provide more detailed explanations about the structure and layout of the neighbour’s flat.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about how the landlord handled his reports of noise nuisance since 2021. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is typically within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 8 May 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 8 May 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
  2. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from 8 May 2022 up to the landlord’s final response on 19 September 2023. We will also consider how the landlord handled his noise reports following this insofar as these events relate to commitments it made as part of this response.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. The landlord’s policy on handling noise nuisance states that it will assess each report when deciding whether it is antisocial behaviour, considering factors such as frequency and circumstances and whether the reported incident is deliberate, inadvertent or exacerbated by other physical conditions. For example, the fabric and structure of the building. Before making a decision, it will consider gathering more evidence by contacting other residents, the alleged perpetrator, and other agencies.
  2. It also sets out that, where possible, it will discuss and agree actions to investigate a report with the resident. It explains that it takes a reasonable and proportionate approach to addressing ASB noise following investigations. It does so by considering a wide range of actions, such as:
    1. Warning letters.
    2. Mediation.
    3. Good Neighbour Agreements.
    4. Acceptable Behaviour Agreements.
    5. Community Protection Notice/Warning.
    6. Notice of Seeking Possession.
  3. On 8 May 2022 the resident reported banging, thudding, and pacing noises coming from his neighbour’s flat. The landlord replied the following day and advised that it would feedback to him on 9 May 2022. It failed to do so, and this likely caused the resident some frustration. The resident chased a response on 19 May 2022 and asked the landlord to install NRE. It acknowledged this the following day, and explained it would discuss his request for NRE with its community team. This was in line with its policy which states it will discuss and agree the actions it will take to investigate resident’s noise reports.
  4. The resident made a further noise report on 6 June 2022, and then advised that there had been no noise disturbance for 2 weeks on 15 June 2022. He then advised the problem had resumed on 22 August 2022 and repeated his request for NRE. There is no indication the landlord replied to any of these emails. This was not in keeping with its policy, and this omission likely caused the resident some distress.
  5. On 11 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident it would install NRE, and it did so on 4 November 2022. Over the next few weeks the resident used the NRE to try and document instances of noise. We note that he advised the landlord during this period that he had been unable to capture any noise disturbances because his neighbour was not making any such noise. The landlord collected the NRE on 28 November 2022, and advised the resident that it would aim to give him a decision within 4 weeks. The landlord acted in line with its policy here by gathering further evidence and discussing likely timescales of its decision with the resident.
  6. However, the landlord then failed to update the resident within these timescales. It did not get back in touch with him until 19 January 2023 when it advised that the staff member responsible for his case was absent and that this was delaying its progression. Following this it did not contact him again until he made another noise report on 2 March 2023. It advised it was unable to access the NRE files because the member of staff in possession of them was still absent. Because of this, it advised it had opened a new ASB case to investigate his concerns.
  7. While we note that landlord’s cannot fully mitigate against delays caused by unexpected staff absence, we consider it could have opened a new ASB case much sooner than it did. It also could have done more to keep the resident informed while he waited for a decision. We consider these omissions likely caused the resident some distress, especially since he had undergone expended time in operating the NRE throughout November.
  8. The landlord visited the resident on 10 March 2023 and discussed his latest noise report with him. It offered to install NRE again which he refused. It also advised him that it would do the following to address his report: discuss it with his neighbour, update him every fortnight, and test the noise levels in each flat. The landlord acted positively and as per its policy here, and the resident emailed soon after to advise that he was reassured by this approach.
  9. The resident continued to report tapping, banging, and “dragging” noises over the following month on a weekly basis. The landlord acknowledged each of these reports and asked him again whether he would consider using any NRE. The resident did not address this suggestion. On 27 April 2023 the landlord met with the neighbour and discussed the noise reports as per its policy. However, it then failed to update the resident about this. We consider this likely caused him some frustration.
  10. The resident complained on 8 May 2023 that the landlord was unreasonably delaying in addressing his report. On 15 May 2023 the landlord spoke to the neighbour again and asked them to consider installing a rug in the hallway to mitigate noise. It advised the resident it had done so, and asked whether it could visit the property to complete a noise test. The landlord acted as per its policy here by: considering what material circumstances could be changed to resolve things, keeping the resident informed, and attempting to gather more evidence.
  11. Over the next 2 months the resident continued to intermittently make noise reports of banging, thudding, and “dragging”. We can see the landlord acknowledged most of these but missed a few. At some point in July 2023 the landlord issued a yellow warning letter to the neighbour about noise, and it advised the resident it had done so on 21 July 2023. This was in line with its policy.
  12. In its stage 1 response of 2 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged there had been substantial delays and that it had communicated poorly with the resident. To address his concerns moving forward, it committed to: provide fortnightly updates, interview the neighbour, analyse any noise recordings, and issue individual apologies from staff members involved. The landlord acted appropriately by recognising where it had gone wrong in its handling of his reports so far. We also consider the action plan proposed was proportionate.
  13. On 4 August 2023 the resident replied and explained that NRE was unlikely to capture the noise due to the sporadic nature of it. On 8 August 2023 the resident advised that the neighbour had ceased any noise disturbances. On 18 August 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to honour its commitment to update him fortnightly. While we note that the landlord made this commitment, it is unclear what the resident expected to be updated about given he had advised the landlord 10 days before that the noise disturbances had ceased. The landlord might have avoided this by agreeing to provide these regular updates during periods in which the resident was reporting ongoing noise disturbance.
  14. The landlord replied on 22 August 2023 and explained that it needed to install NRE as it would need evidence of the alleged disturbance to proceed. On 29 August 2023 the resident replied explaining the neighbour was “mostly silent” and refused NRE. On 11 September 2023 he declined the NRE again and explained that the neighbour would likely “be quiet for a month or two now that [they were] aware of [the landlord’s] interest”.
  15. The landlord visited the neighbour again on 12 September 2023 to discuss the reports. It assessed the layout of their flat and found that there was no rug in the hallway. It also noted that a “floor board” in the bedroom might be weak and therefore creating noise when stepped on. It relayed these observations to the resident on 15 September 2023. It acted appropriately by keeping the resident informed of the action it was taking as part of its investigation.
  16. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023 and acknowledged the previous delays and instances of poor communication. To put this right it offered the resident £400 in compensation. It restated the observations it made about the neighbour’s flat and how certain structural features might be generating noise. It also noted that the resident had not advised of any recent noise nuisance, and encouraged him to get back in touch if it resumed.
  17. We consider this was a reasonable response. The landlord fully acknowledged the omissions we have identified up to this point, and apologised for these. Our compensation guidance states that payments between £100 and £600 are typically sufficient to put things right when a failing has had an adverse, but not permanent, impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of £400 sits at the mid-higher range of this scale, and we consider this is appropriate and sufficient to put things right. Therefore, we consider the landlord did enough to remedy its failures from May 2022 to September 2022 in its final response.
  18. However, following this response the resident emailed the landlord several times across the following month to ask for clarification on actions it had taken and to chase the apology from staff members which it had committed to in its stage 1 response. He also disputed the landlord’s structural observations about his neighbour’s flat. He explained that, despite the landlord’s view, there were no floorboards in their property. He also asked for further information about the layout of the property.
  19. The landlord failed to respond to any of these emails until it advised him on 16 October 2023 that it would address his outstanding queries by the end of that day. It failed to do so. This omission and the failure to respond to any of his previous emails from the past month likely caused the resident some frustration.
  20. The landlord issued a personal apology from the staff members involved in his noise cases on 20 October 2023. On 23 October 2023 it wrote to the resident and addressed some of the queries he had raised throughout the prior month, and provided a timeline of the actions it had taken in relation to his report. It also apologised for the delay in doing so. Given the relatively short period of delay, we consider this was sufficient to put this right.
  21. The landlord then tried to call the resident on 16 November 2023 to discuss this in greater detail, but he refused the call. It followed up with an email and explained that it would not provide any further detail about the layout of his neighbour’s flat as this would unfairly breach their privacy. It also clarified that it had observed a “flooring noise”, in response to the resident’s view that there were no floorboards.
  22. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that he considers the landlord needs to provide further detail about the neighbour’s property. He advised he will not be satisfied until it does so. However, the landlord is not obligated to go into any more detail about this, and doing so would likely raise GDPR concerns. Ultimately, we consider the landlord has provided a reasonable and proportionate level of information about the layout of the neighbour’s flat insofar as this relates to its investigation of his noise reports.
  23. Over the next several months the resident continued to make noise reports detailing banging, thudding, tapping and DIY sounds. We can see the landlord acknowledged each of these. It also repeatedly offered to install NRE or conduct visits to the property to gather more evidence. The resident refused these measures each time they were suggested.
  24. We can see the landlord then engaged with the neighbour in December 2023 and suggested buying a rug for his hallway to try and mitigate any potential noise disturbance. The neighbour declined to do so due to concerns about costs. In early April 2024 we can see it then offered to financially assist them in purchasing a rug for the hallway to mitigate household noise. The landlord then closed the case on 5 April 2024 due to a lack of evidence and explained this to the resident. The resident disagrees with this decision and considers the landlord should have taken enforcement action on the basis of his written noise logs.
  25. We recognise the resident objects to the decision to close his case. However, we consider this was reasonable given the lack of evidence, and the resident’s repeated refusal to allow the landlord to gather more evidence. Ultimately, we consider the landlord acted proportionately by refraining from taking enforcement action. We can see it considered the options available to it under its policy, and that it decided that offering to purchase a rug for the neighbour was the furthest it could go in the absence of any robust evidence of actual noise nuisance. It is our view that this decision, and the subsequent decision to close the case, was proportionate and therefore in line with its policy.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will investigate stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If an extension is required it will write to the resident and explain the reasons for this. The same applies for stage 2 complaints but the timescale is extended to 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 May 2023. The landlord did not respond until 2 August 2023 which was 50 working days past its timescales. While we can see the landlord emailed the resident twice during this period to advise its response was delayed, it did not provide any updated timescales. We consider that this failure likely caused the resident some frustration, and so we will order the landlord pays some compensation to put this right.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will make payments between £100 and £300 to put right moderate distress caused by its failures. The landlord exceeded its timescales in issuing its stage 1 response by 50 working days. This delay is relatively significant. However, we also note that the landlord updated him twice during this period. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident £125.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 18 August 2023, and the landlord provided a response on 19 September 2023. While this was 2 working days later than the timescales in its policy, any impact caused by this was likely minor given how slight the delay was. Therefore, we will not make any orders related to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £125 for its delay in addressing his stage 1 complaint.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should remake its offer to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of its poor communication and delays in handling his noise reports.