London Borough of Hackney (202340146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340146

London Borough of Hackney

26 November 2024

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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor of a 5 storey block. The Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) managed the block on behalf of the local authority.
Throughout the rest of the report, The Ombudsman will refer to both the TMO and the local authority as the landlord unless necessary to differentiate both organisations’ actions.
The resident raised several noise and harassment complaints to the landlord between March 2022 and October 2023 about her neighbour. The resident believed the TMO was not taking appropriate action around her concerns and raised a complaint on 20 November 2023.
The TMO provided a response which detailed its actions to investigate her concerns on 22 November 2023. This included placing CCTV in her neighbour’s property to verify her reports. The footage supported that her neighbour did not cause a number of the noise reports the resident reported in dairy sheets she submitted. It said it would not uphold her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2022. She raised her concerns with her neighbour and said in some cases to get away from the noise, she repositioned herself to a different part of her property. She said her neighbour shadowed her presence and once she found her, started making more noise. She explained the continuous banging on the ceiling had taken a severe toll on her mental wellbeing forcing her to avoid staying in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 7 December 2023. It said it had conducted a thorough review of the TMO’s actions to ensure it adhered to its ASB service standards and kept her adequately informed. The landlord said its investigation involved tools such as noise machines, apps, mediation, door knocking exercises, and interviews. It consistently concluded that the noise reported fell under everyday living noise.
It addressed her concerns about the use of CCTV in her neighbour’s property without consulting with her. She said she felt this meant it did not believe her neighbour’s noise affected her. The landlord explained that it had several tools and powers available to enable it to conclude its investigations. It said it was not upholding her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2023. She provided detailed reasons for her escalation which have been summarised. She raised a number of concerns about the landlord’s investigation, specifically about a lack of direct communication prior to reaching a decision. She said the ASB situation had persisted for several years. She said she believed there had been an oversight of ongoing violations and harassment that she experienced. She raised concerns about a lack of adequate safeguards for her wellbeing and faith.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024. It reiterated it had acted in line with its policies and procedures in investigating her noise complaint. There was no evidence to support her claims beyond what it considered to be daily living noise. It explained its actions following its stage 1 response. She had raised concerns relating back to several years. However, in line with its complaints policy, it would not consider issues dating back more than 12 months since she became aware of them. It said following its review of the evidence, it found nothing to support her claims of harassment.
A report noted that several of the issues she raised were daily living sounds. It said in a bid to further support her claims, it was open to the suggestion that an independent witness spend time in her home to try to gather the required evidence. If this were an option she wished to explore, she should let it know and it would ensure it made the necessary arrangements.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 17 February 2024 that the situation affected her mental health. She asked for the landlord to listen to her recordings and acknowledge there was a problem with her neighbour intentionally banging on her ceiling. She said it had attended her property, installed the noise monitoring equipment, spoke to her neighbour and installed CCTV inside their property. She asked for the landlord to provide the noise machine again to allow her to evidence her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The TMO is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, it acts on behalf of the landlord in the management of the property. The landlord is a member of the Scheme. As such the Ombudsman finds that the TMO’s actions are on behalf of the landlord. Based on this, the Ombudsman will consider actions taken by the TMO as those of the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on her health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on her health.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that she had evidence in the form of noise recordings she wanted to provide. This was to support her reports that her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance and harassing her. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether noise levels amount to noise nuisance and harassment. It is also not our role to determine whether specific behaviours amount to harassment or ASB.
Further, the Ombudsman would not be able to determine where any recorded noise came from (whether it was from the resident’s property, or her neighbours). As a result, the Ombudsman does not believe the provision of this evidence would impact our decision. The resident may wish to communicate with the landlord about this. The landlord should advise the resident whether it is willing to accept this evidence, and if not, why it cannot do so.
The landlord has provided evidence in relation to other ASB issues raised by the resident such as chicken bones found in her garden. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to suggest that these issues have exhausted its internal complaints process. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider this issue within this investigation.
The resident has raised another complaint with the landlord on 20 June 2024 in relation to noise and perceived bias in handling her concerns. As there is another complaint raised in relation to the issue, the Ombudsman will only consider the resident’s concerns until 20 June 2024.

Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy describes noise and harassment as types of ASB. It says:
1. That harassment is an offence committed against a person to intimidate them and make them feel uncomfortable. It provides examples such as name calling, threats to people or their homes and stalking as harassment.
2. Noise can include shouting, television sets, and radios.
3. If someone falsely accuses another of ASB, it will take appropriate action against them. This includes malicious or vexatious complaints.
4. It would assess each report when deciding whether it was ASB, considering factors such as frequency and circumstances. It would consider whether the reported incident was deliberate, inadvertent, or exacerbated by other physical conditions such as the fabric and structure of the building.
5. It will investigate all reports of ASB professionally and objectively. This meant that it would, unless inappropriate to do so (for example it would put people at risk), get proof to show whether the incident was ASB. Before deciding, it would get proof by contacting other residents, the person said to have behaved in an antisocial way and other agencies.
6. It adopted a reasonable and proportionate approach to dealing with ASB and employed several tools such as warning letters and mediation.
7. It adopted professional witnessing and provided equipment for gathering evidence such as CCTV and equipment that records noise.
The resident raised several concerns in relation to her neighbour causing noise nuisance between 2022 and 2024. These were both with the TMO and the landlord. The landlord appropriately showed that it considered her concerns and took necessary action. It completed a risk assessment and addressed the issues directly with her neighbour. It provided updates to its action plan to the resident for example in the email dated 16 February 2023. It suggested mediation between the parties to try to repair the relationship and find a solution on several occasions. It provided noise recording equipment to the resident on at least 2 occasions (May 2022 and October 2023). On one occasion, there were some technical difficulties which led to this not working properly.
The resident asked it to provide this again, and it explained why it could not do so (it was in use at another property). When the resident told the landlord that the noise nuisance and harassment continued, it arranged for a member of staff to visit. The resident believed the member of staff compromised the visit by talking and made her neighbour aware of their presence.
The landlord provided a noise app to allow the resident to provide evidence of the noise. It reviewed the evidence at each stage and said it could not find any noise which it could constitute as a nuisance. The TMO had also installed CCTV in her neighbour’s property to verify the resident’s noise reports and the landlord relied on this evidence in its decision making. It appropriately explained to her that without evidence to support her reports, it could not find that there was harassment or a noise nuisance. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, proportionate to the situation, and in line with its ASB policy. Its actions also demonstrated its response to her, that it took an evidence-based approach in its decision making.
Where there was however a failing was in its provision of a professional witness as advised in its stage 2 response. It told the resident in February 2024 that this was a possibility it would consider. When the resident asked about this, it delayed in its communication with her. It continued to discuss internally whether it could facilitate this between February 2024 and September 2024. It also has not showed that it provided the resident with a definitive answer around her request. This raises questions with its communication, is a delay of 7 months, and is unreasonable. The landlord has since provided the Ombudsman with a report from its environmental health team which shows they could not identify any concerns which amounted to a nuisance.
The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it checked the resident’s neighbour’s property, to ensure that there were adequate floor coverings. This would have been a reasonable option to ensure that they had adequate covering to aid in preventing any noise transference. It also did not demonstrate that it checked both properties to ensure that there were no defects which contributed to any noise transference. The failure to show that it did so was inappropriate. However, the evidence it gathered from the noise apps, CCTV footage, visits, and noise machine did not identify any nuisance. As such its failure to take this action does not suggest a significant detriment to the resident.
In summary, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy around the resident’s reports. It took the necessary action to try to address the situation. It however failed in its communication with the resident as it delayed in providing her with the information in relation to a professional witness for the noise. It also failed to assure itself that the resident’s neighbour had adequate floor coverings to assist in reducing or preventing any noise transference. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint’s policy states it operates a 2 stage process. It says it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. If required, it would request an extension for providing its response late. This would be no more than 10 working days. Its policy also states it will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
Following the TMO’s complaint response, the resident remained dissatisfied. She complained to the landlord about the TMO’s handling of her concerns. The landlord within its responses showed that it had investigated the TMO’s handling of her concerns, and reached a conclusion that their actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policies. It explained how many cases she had opened, and the tools employed by the TMO to investigate and try and reach a solution. The Ombudsman believes that the landlord’s actions show that it investigated the TMO’s approach in investigating the resident’s concerns.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 15 January 2024 and explained that there may be a delay in its response. It told the resident it would provide a response by 7 February 2024. This was an appropriate action to take. It then provided its response on 8 February 2024. Despite the 24-hour delay outside of its provided deadline, there is no evidence this caused significant detriment to the resident.
In summary, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns around the TMO’s handling of her noise nuisance and harassment concerns. Although there was a delay in its stage 2 response, it appropriately notified the resident of this, and there is no evidence of any detriment in the further 24-hour delay in its response. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was:
1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
2. No maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failing identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
2. Confirm if it is willing to accept the resident’s noise machine recordings or spreadsheet results, and if not explain why. If it cannot accept the resident’s recordings or results, it should provide a time estimate on when it may be able to provide her with its own noise machine.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
If the matter remains ongoing, within 8 weeks of this determination, the landlord must inspect the neighbour’s property to determine whether there are adequate floor coverings to assist with noise transference. It must also inspect both properties to identify if there are any issues leading to noise transference. It must confirm its findings in writing to both the resident and Ombudsman.

Recommendation

Explore if there are any actions or options it can take around insulating the resident’s property around her noise concerns.