London Borough of Hackney (202333402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333402

London Borough of Hackney

25 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

The residents’ complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) made against them.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The residents have been secured tenants of the landlord since November 1997. The property is a second floor, 2 bedroom flat. At the time, the residents had a young child and a second soon to be born.
From 3 May 2022 the landlord began to receive reports of harassment against the resident from their neighbour. The landlord then issued the residents with 2 yellow and 1 red warning letter before issuing a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) on 12 December 2022.
The residents raised their complaint on 14 December 2022. They said they had not received any of the warnings letters referred to in the NOSP. They said that was the first they had heard of any allegations made by their neighbour and they had not been given the opportunity to respond.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 January 2023. It said it had posted the warning letters to the residents and had no reason to believe they had not received them. It said it had made 2 unannounced visits to the property but no one was available and it had left a calling card after the second attempt. It said that it had tried to contact the residents throughout the course of the case and found it had not made any faults in its handling of it. It also referred to an anti-social behaviour warning (ASBW) and community protection warning (CPW) issued to the resident by the policy in October and November 2022 respectively.
The residents escalated their complaint on 31 January 2023. They said they had never received any of the warning letters, the landlord had not left any calling cards following the supposed visits and it had failed to communicate via phone or email. They said the landlord had fraudulently edited the warning letters to appear like they had sent them and the police agreed the letters had been tampered with. They said the landlord had not followed its ASB policy nor adequately investigated the claims made against them. They said it had issued the NOSP based purely on unsubstantiated reports from their neighbour. They also said they were disputing the ASBW and CPW with the police.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 April 2023. It said:
1. It felt it had made reasonable attempts to communicate with the residents about the allegations but was unsuccessful.
2. It acknowledged that the resident’s name was misspelt on the NOSP. It said it would withdraw the NOSP and reissue it.
3. It had discussed the issue of the errors within the warning letters with the officer. He confirmed they were an oversight on his part and were typos.
4. It apologised for the administrative errors but found that the NOSP had been issued correctly.
On 29 January 2024 the residents confirmed that they wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. They said that the landlord had made no attempt to contact them about the allegations against them until it issued the NOSP. They said the landlord put together the NOSP using only the neighbour’s allegations but it had not investigated these nor given them chance to reply to them. They said this had caused them extreme stress and anxiety as the security of their home was at risk. They said the landlord refused to admit ‘negligence’ in how it handled the reports of ASB and that the warning letters were fraudulently put together to look like they had been sent.
The Ombudsman is aware that since the landlord issued its stage 2 response it has withdrawn the NOSP but has not reissued it. We are also aware that in May 2023 the police retracted the CPW due to lack of evidence and apologised to the residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As part of their complaint the residents have said the landlord fraudulently altered the warning letters. Whilst these comments have been noted, this aspect of the complaint cannot be investigated as the Ombudsman does not have the authority to determine whether or not a crime, such as fraud, has been committed. This is something that only the police and/or a court would be able to determine. Although the Ombudsman is unable to make legally binding decisions regarding the resident’s concerns that the warning letters were altered, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about this.
It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord, however, has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB.

11. The landlord’s ASB Procedure allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that the landlord could take either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. The Ombudsman must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedure in response to the reported ASB and whether its actions were appropriate and proportionate.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate all reports of ASB professionally and objectively. It says it will get proof to show whether or not the incident was ASB and before making a decision it will get proof by contacting:
1. Other residents.
2. The person who is reported to have behaved antisocially.
3. Other agencies.
The policy also says that where possible the landlord will discuss and agree actions to investigate a report with the resident. However, some actions may be taken without their knowledge, such as sharing information with the police.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail without which we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide further documents, correspondence and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not respond nor did it provide significant items such as notes of interviews along with other items and records that evidence how the landlord investigated the alleged ASB. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information actually received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
The records the landlord has provided show that on 11 May and 16 September 2022 it issued the residents with a yellow warning letter following reports of ‘loud shouting most nights and threatening behaviour’ from their neighbour. The records show the landlord made an unannounced visit on 16 September 2022 but no one was at the property. The landlord’s records show it made another unannounced visit on 5 October 2022 but no one was at the property and says it left a calling card. On 25 October 2022 the landlord issued a red warning letter following reports of ‘harassment, threatening, intimidating and hate inciting behaviour’ from their neighbour. The landlord has confirmed that these letters were all sent using the normal postal service. Despite these warning letters the landlord continued to receive reports of ASB from the residents’ neighbour and it hand delivered a NOSP on 12 December 2022.
The Ombudsman appreciates the residents have said they did not receive any of the warning letters issued by the landlord. They have also said the landlord should have sent these letters by recorded delivery and followed up with them to ensure they had received them. While it might have been good practice for the landlord to have followed up with the residents after issuing the letters, there was no obligation on it to do so.
As part of the residents’ complaint they raised concerns that at least one of the warning letters the landlord said it issued was fraudulently altered to look like it was sent when the landlord said it was. This was particularly relating to the letter issued in May 2022 which referred to a conversation in the future on 16 September 2022. It is also the case that the 16 September 2022 is the date on which the second yellow warning letter was issued.
In its complaint responses the landlord said it had referred the residents concerns about the letter to the case handler and they confirmed it was just a typo. The landlord apologised for the error in the letter but confirmed it was not fraudulently constructed. The Ombudsman appreciates why the residents were suspicious of the error on the letter given the dates in question. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the case handler’s comments that the error was just a typo and not malicious.
The records provided show the landlord was in contact with the police in October and November 2022 regarding the allegations made by the neighbour. The police confirmed they had also received reports from the neighbour and on 11 October 2022 they confirmed they had issued the residents an ASBW. They then confirmed on 17 November 2022 that they had issued the residents with a CPW.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the information provided by the police as part of an investigation into the neighbour’s allegations. However, the landlord has failed to provide evidence of it having carried out its own investigation to substantiate the neighbour’s allegations of ASB. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman, including the complaint responses, make several references to the dates on which the neighbour reported ASB and that they said they had CCTV footage of the incident in question. Yet the Ombudsman has not seen anything to confirm the landlord actually obtained a copy of this footage and what it showed. Without this information the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord did not adequately investigate the neighbours allegations and failed to obtain copies of important evidence.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it did not contact the resident about the neighbours reports because their contact details were not held on its ASB case management system. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response contradicts this by saying that it did try to call the residents but their phone number was listed incorrectly. In response to the stage 2 response the resident confirmed that his phone number has not changed for many years and he has received numerous calls and texts from the landlord over the years. The landlord has not disputed this and has not explained why it did not use the contact details contained in its main housing system.
Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any attempts by the landlord to call or email the residents. Without this evidence the Ombudsman can only conclude the landlord did not make all reasonable attempts to contact the residents regarding the neighbour’s allegations prior to issuing the warning letters and NOSP. This indicates the landlord relied solely on the neighbour’s reports and the police warnings when deciding to issue its warning letters as well as the NOSP. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy.
It was also unreasonable for the landlord to have made 2 unannounced visits to the residents home. Given the nature of the allegations it should have contacted them and arranged a convenient time to attend the property. The landlord’s records also do not show any evidence of it having carried out information gathering by, for example, interviewing other residents in the surrounding area.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the police told the landlord in October and November 2022 that it had issued the residents with an ASBW and CPW. However, this was after the landlord had issued its warning letters and no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord carried out its own investigation into allegations before that. Additionally, no evidence has been seen to show the police confirmed that the residents had been charged with any offences.
It should also be noted that in May 2023 the police withdrew the CPW and apologised to the residents. This was because it had had insufficient evidence to corroborate the neighbours allegations of ASB and therefore the CPW should not have been issued. This highlights the importance of landlord’s carrying out their own thorough investigations into allegations of ASB, capturing an adequate level evidence upon which it could reply upon before any action was taken and not relying solely on information from third parties.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it can use tools such as, for example, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation or good neighbour agreements to resolve cases of ASB. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show the landlord carried out any secondary intervention using these tools prior to issuing the warning letters or NOSP. Its case notes contain an entry dated 15 November 2022 which says it was to offer mediation to both parties in an attempt to resolve matters. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show the landlord ever offered mediation or, if it did, when and what the response was. The landlord has also not provided evidence of information gathering until it spoke to the police in November 2022. Without this evidence the Ombudsman can not conclude that the landlord made any efforts to carry out any secondary intervention and attempt to resolve matters at a local level. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its ASB policy or good industry practice.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of authorisations for the pursuance of the NOSP. As set out in this report, the landlord failed to adequately investigate and substantiate the neighbour’s allegations before issuing the NOSP. The residents name was also misspelt on the NOSP. This indicates a lack of oversight of the ASB investigation on the part of the landlord.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to adhere to its ASB policy by not:
1. Adequately investigating the neighbour’s reports of ASB by making all reasonable attempts to gather information from the residents themselves and other neighbours.
2. Following good industry practice and trying other ways of managing disputes between neighbours.
Cumulatively these failures amount to maladministration as they led to the issues continuing without the landlord making all reasonable attempts to investigate or resolve matters between the parties before issuing the NOSP. This in turn caused the resident avoidable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience as the NOSP caused them to fear that they would lose their home. The Ombudsman has also noted that this would have had a greater impact on the residents because the NOSP was issued the week before Christmas and the resident was 7 months pregnant.
In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the residents £400 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. We also order the landlord to provide further training to its ASB case workers on the importance of adequately investigating allegations of ASB in line with its ASB policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy says 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.
The residents raised their complaint on 14 December 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 January 2023. The landlord’s response was 9 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
The residents escalated their complaint on 31 January 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 April 2023. This was nearly 3 months after the residents raised their complaint. This was a significant delay and not in keeping with either the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to explain why there was such a delay in it responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint nor that it communicated with them about it. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Cumulatively this failure amounts to maladministration as it led to a significant delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This in turn caused the resident’s an additional extended period of distress and inconvenience as they continued to dispute the NOSP with the landlord while waiting for its complaint response.
In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
2. Directly pay the resident:
  1. £400 compensation for its handling of the neighbour’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 compensation for its handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete a review of the learning from this case and ensure that it has an adequate and substantiated level of confidence in its arrangement for the competence, guidance, and oversight of its ASB case workers and those who supervise them. Particular focus must be placed on the adequacy of evidence captured prior to any possible actions or sanctions being taken.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.