We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hackney (202345272)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345272

London Borough of Hackney

8 August 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) reports.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a property on floor 1 of a 5 storey block.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 7 and 14 August 2023 to report ASB incidents which had occurred at his home and asked for a call back on both occasions. He rang again on 17 August 2023 to ask about the installation of a camera. He then raised his complaint on 20 August 2023. He raised concerns about the landlord not calling him back. He said his calls were about ASB incidents which took place on 24 and 25 June 2023. He explained the situation to the landlord, the police’s involvement, and their actions in reviewing CCTV footage. He raised concerns about:
    1. The individual he spoke with on 17 August 2023 as he said they were rude to him and would not listen to his concerns.
    2. A urine smell inside the front entrance of the building, which the member of staff said they would get a cleaner to mop up. He said he did not mention anything about urine on the floor, but instead a urine smell in the building.
    3. His housing officer not returning his calls.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 September 2023. It acknowledged his frustration and concern about the incidents that took place. It:
    1. Apologised for the distress and any inconvenience he experienced in trying to speak with his housing officer. It clarified they were on leave at the time of his calls.
    2. Explained it had investigated his concerns over the telephone call and said the call became strained due to raised voices and aggressive behaviour. It explained it did not tolerate such actions towards it staff but would also address this internally with the member of staff.
    3. In terms of the 2 incidents he reported, it had liaised with its ASB team, and they said he had not formally reported the issues. It provided him with a link explaining how to report ASB. To ensure it investigated his concerns, it copied its ASB team into the email response so they could log his case and begin investigating.
    4. Upheld his complaint based on the findings of its investigation and apologised.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision and wrote to it on 4 October 2023. He reiterated his concerns around contacting the landlord from 7 August 2023. He explained when he received a call back from the landlord on 22 August 2023 its officer ended the call, which he found very strange. He said he did not accept the landlord’s apologies, as if his safety and wellbeing were important to the landlord, its housing officer would have visited after the first incident. He then told it that there had been another issue on 15 September 2023 where someone threw an egg at his window. He said:
    1. He could see it had opened an ASB case, but he did not want the member of staff assigned to deal with it as they were the individual he had an issue with on 22 August 2023. He had made a formal complaint against them for a reason.
    2. Its ASB officer had not visited him after his report. He also mentioned the issue with the CCTV cameras, and also wanted lighting installed at the back of the estate to allow the police to catch the persistent perpetrator and act. He said he wanted all his concerns investigated.
  5. The parties continued to communicate between October 2023 and January 2024. On 5 January 2024, the resident formally asked to escalate his complaint. He told the landlord he was unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation at stage 1. He reiterated several issues he had raised previously around staff, the smell of urine, a dog urinating in the communal area and also CCTV cameras. He said he told the landlord in his original complaint about someone urinating on the floor.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 February 2024. It concluded that it had asked the resident’s housing officer to contact him. They tried to do so between 5 October 2023 and 30 November 2023. They made further attempts on 5 and 7 February 2024. It also said:
    1. Its ASB policy and procedure said that it should have acknowledged his concerns within 5 days of his report. It did not contact him until 18 August 2023.
    2. It did not acknowledge his complaint until 28 September 2023. It also tried to contact him by phone on 14 November 2023 and this was unsuccessful.
    3. Its policy said it should have reviewed his case once per month and it did not do so as it could not contact him. It however did not try to contact him in December 2023 or January 2024.
    4. Having considered his circumstances and the impact the situation had on him, in reference to its internal compensation guidance, it awarded him £100 to reflect the level of fault in the case, and £40 for its complaint handling failings.
    5. It apologised for the way it handled the case and hoped once he contacted his housing officer, he could arrange an appointment to see what action it could take going forward. It would also write to him about the CCTV.
  7. The resident explained the situation to us, he told us he had raised a complaint previously against the person who contacted him, and he did not want to speak to them. He told us he expected a letter outlining the landlord’s plans around his ASB case but did not get anything at all.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about the cleaner in his building. He said that they did not mop the floors as he had noticed urine down the stairs, and he wanted to add this to his complaint. The landlord did not consider this within the complaint’s response. Our scheme says we can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As the landlord has not responded to this matter within this complaint, we will not consider it within this investigation.

Handling of ASB reports

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says it aims to deliver professional high quality services that are practical and effective. It explains that it could see actions directed at people such as harassment, and misuse of public spaces such as animal related nuisance as ASB. It also specifically mentions animal mess in shared areas as a form of ASB. It said it will investigate all reports of antisocial behaviour professionally and objectively. This means it will get proof to show whether the incident was ASB.
  2. The policy also says it will agree an action plan with the resident, monitor and review arrangements if possible. It explains its housing management service deals with ASB, and in most cases a housing officer will carry out an investigation of a report of low level ASB.
  3. Within our review of the evidence, we have found that there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. These include concerns with its communication and failure to acknowledge the resident’s ASB complaint within the timeframes provided within its policy. It also failed to review the resident’s case monthly in line with its ASB policy. These failings led to distress and inconvenience for the resident and a breakdown in his relationship with a member of its staff.
  4. The landlord has also acknowledged that there were failings in its approach across its responses. It found several of the failings that we also found through our investigation. It also explained to the resident why it could not take some of the actions he wanted such as around the installation of the CCTV, as it needed to consult with other residents. It explained its attempts to contact the resident about his concerns and its inability to reach him.
  5. As such our role in this instance is to decide whether the landlord found all its failings and did enough to put things right. It offered the resident compensation around the failings it found which was appropriate. Its explanation around the reasons it could not install the CCTV he suggested was also reasonable. However, from reviewing the evidence, there were other failings the landlord did not identify in its approach.
  6. The resident raised concerns with 2 members of the landlord’s staff following his interactions with them as he was unhappy. He asked to raise a formal complaint about them. One of these individuals was his housing officer. Following this the landlord then asked the same housing officer he had complained about to contact him. He told it that he did not want to speak to them and wanted to speak with a manager. The housing officer however continued to contact the resident.
  7. We would expect the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and explain to him why the housing officer needed to keep contacting him despite his requests not to speak to them. It could also have taken steps to try to repair the relationship between the parties. It has not shown that it did either of these things and that was unreasonable. However, as the resident did not engage with the landlord despite telephone calls, emails, visits, and a calling card asking he contact it, we cannot find that the delay in acting was solely down to the landlord. There was however a communication issue due to the lack of appropriate explanation around why the housing officer needed to liaise with the resident.
  8. However, the evidence shows the landlord only took alternative actions (email and calling card asking for contact in February 2024) to try and contact the resident on 2 occasions. The landlord often could not leave voicemails for the resident following telephone calls.
  9. After the resident raised his concerns around the fouling in the communal areas, the evidence provided shows that the landlord then did not act until July 2024, 5 months after the stage 2 response, and 11 months after he raised the issue. It told the resident that it would send a block letter around the issue, however within the evidence provided, it told us that it attended the block on 17 August 2024 and spoke with other residents around this issue. Its records say that none of the resident’s were able to provide any information.
  10. Based on the information provided to us however, it appears it took the landlord around 12 months to investigate the resident’s concerns around the urine in the block. Whilst there were difficulties in reaching the resident, we do not believe that caused a significant impact in it investigating the issue. It could have taken the actions it did in August 2024 at a much earlier point to try to identify the perpetrator. The delay in taking any action was inappropriate. Based on this we find that there was service failure.
  11. In its stage 2 response in February 2024, it said the reason it had not sent a block letter previously because it could not contact the resident. We acknowledge that this may have led to some difficulties, however, the landlord could have completed its own independent investigations and decided whether it needed to take such action. The failure to do so was inappropriate. The resident then provided us with evidence that the landlord sent a block letter on 23 October 2024. He explained to us during a telephone call in July 2025 that it sent the letter after he raised the issue again.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy operates 4 tiers. Its offer of £100 redress falls within Tier 1 or 2 of its policy. Tier 1 offers compensation of £50 to £100 for minimal impact, short duration and where the issue did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. It says it may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence and delays in resolving the issue where there was a minor service failure which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.
  13. Tier 2 awards between £100 to £600 where there is no permanent impact on a resident but there the issue adversely affects the resident. It considers where there was a failure to acknowledge its failings and/ or where the landlord made no attempt to put things right. It also considers where it has acknowledged its failings and/ or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  14. Based on the evidence, we believe an offer within tier 2 of the landlord’s policy is appropriate. This is because the landlord did not acknowledge all of its failings, and some of them continued after the conclusion of the complaints process. This led to him taking the time to repeatedly raising the issue with the landlord, before it took the necessary action. Based on this we order that the resident pay the landlord added compensation.

Complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction.
  2. The landlord appropriately responded within the timescales in its policy at stage 1 of the complaints procedure. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2023. He told it that he did not accept its apology following the complaint, and he expressed dissatisfaction around its handling of his ASB concerns. As the resident had expressed dissatisfaction, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider escalating his complaint to stage 2 at this point or at least clarify with the resident if this was his intention. It did not do so, and this was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
  3. As such we believe that the appropriate date for the resident’s escalation was 4 October 2023. This means that the landlord should have provided its response by 8 November 2023. It did not do so until 13 February 2024, following a formal escalation request from the resident on 5 January 2024 and a request for a 10 day extension. Based on this, there was a delay of over 3 months in it providing its stage 2 response and this was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in its complaint handling and awarded the resident compensation. This was to reflect the additional 10 day extension it requested to respond at stage 2. However, as we have found that there was an even longer delay, we do not consider this to be reasonable. Based on this, we find that there was a service failure.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation may be appropriate for any significant breach of its complaints policy, but specifically if there is a delay in responding to a complaint at stage 1 or stage 2 without proper communication or agreement of an extension with the resident in line with its complaints policy. Based on this, as the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, and this led to a delay in its complaint handling, we order that it pay the resident additional compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
    2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around the identified failings.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £140 which the resident accepted in July 2024. As such the total outstanding is £160 and we break this down as:
      1. £200 for its handling of the resident’s ASB concerns (additional £100).
      2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint (additional £60).
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.