London Borough of Hackney (202431407)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431407

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding closed circuit television (CCTV).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident has depression, anxiety, and limited mobility. The resident has a representative and for the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and his representative as the ‘resident.’
On 4 June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding CCTV he had installed at this property. It said the resident had not obtained permission from it to install the camera and the resident needed to ensure he was complying with the relevant legislation. The landlord said the resident should remove the camera within 7 days of the letter. It outlined the process and information required to request permission to install a CCTV system.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2024. He said that his neighbour had not removed their CCTV and that the neighbour should face the same consequences as him. He said the neighbour had not faced any consequences due to having a disability and according to the landlord, they “can do no wrong.” He said he would send a “screenshot” of his doorbell once the neighbour had removed their CCTV. The resident said he was now available to have a noise monitor installed to “catch” his neighbour. The landlord responded to say it had sent a letter to the neighbour to request they remove their CCTV. It said it would see when a noise monitor could be available.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 15 July 2024. He said there was a longstanding problem with ASB from his neighbour. He said the landlord gave the neighbour preferential treatment due to having a visible disability. He said he had disabilities too but the landlord disregarded them. The resident felt the landlord was discriminating against him. He said the neighbour rented his property to a tenant who made a lot of noise at antisocial hours. The resident said the issue had been ongoing for 17 years and the landlord had promised to take action but it never happened. He said he wanted the landlord to take action against the neighbour and carry out training for its ASB staff.
The resident said the landlord had told him to remove his video doorbell despite the police and his GP telling him to install it for safety and medical reasons. He said he had received death threats from gangs within the block of flats. The resident said while the landlord had spoken with the culprits and there had been no further incidents, they were still mentally taunting and threatening him. He said he did not feel safe. He said the police had said the landlord should move him but the landlord had not progressed this. He said the video doorbell was the only way to know if people were waiting outside for him and to know who to let into the property. The resident said his neighbour had both CCTV and a video doorbell and had not removed theirs.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 July 2024. It said:
1. It had observed that the resident’s camera was capturing footage of the communal area. It said it could reconsider its stance if the resident could provide evidence from the police or his GP which supported the necessity of the camera being positioned in that manner. It said it sent a letter to his neighbour on 5 July 2024 instructing them to remove their camera and had not received a response. It said it had scheduled a meeting with his neighbour for 8 August 2024 to discuss the matter further.
2. It had noted the issues of noise and ASB from the neighbour and their tenant. It said the resident and others had reported noise at antisocial hours. It said it would install a noise monitoring machine on 1 August 2024 to monitor the situation.
3. The resident’s reports of threats and concerns about his safety were deeply concerning. It understood that the video doorbell was a critical tool for him to feel secure.
4. It had taken his allegations regarding preferential treatment for the neighbour seriously. It confirmed that the neighbour was also required to remove their CCTV. It said it needed to address the perception of unequal treatment. It said it aimed to ensure that all residents, regardless of their disabilities, received fair and equal treatment.
5. It said it was not acceptable for the ASB team to be unresponsive and not answer calls to emails. It asked the resident to provide details for the contacts or numbers he had been using and said it would investigate and address any lapses.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 August 2024. He said:
1. The landlord gave the neighbour a far longer time limit to remove their cameras than he had been given. He said this was unfair and showed bias. The resident said he was now alone, scared, and had no way of knowing who was at his door. He said he was still getting death threats. He said he could not send emails from the police as it was for the landlord to contact them.
2. The resident said his allegations of the landlord treating his neighbour differently because of their disabilities had been proven repeatedly. He said his own disabilities had been made worse by the neighbour’s actions but the landlord thought that was fine.
3. The resident said the noise and ASB had been happening since 2001 and in the last 3 years nothing had been done correctly by the landlord. He said the noise monitor was supposed to be installed on 1 August 2024 but it was not working. He said the landlord had not listened to recordings on the noise app and had made promises to monitor the noise since November 2023, but they had still not materialised.
4. The resident said the ASB team were unresponsive and he could provide a folder of emails sent with no responses and calls with no callbacks. He provided the names, emails, and numbers of officers.
5. He said he had asked the landlord to support a move as it would greatly improve his health by not being subjected to the continuous noise levels and threats.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 September 2024. It said the resident has raised a separate complaint related to the gang in the block and the installation of CCTV which it responded to at stage 2 on 12 April 2024. The landlord said the resident could progress the case to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. It said:
1. It had advised both the resident and his neighbour to remove cameras located in the communal hallway. It said it gave the resident a 1 month extension due to him being out of the country in June 2024. It confirmed that both the resident and his neighbour had removed their cameras but noted that the resident no longer felt safe as a result. It confirmed that the resident could have a video doorbell but he must not place it in a position to film communal areas. It said as it sent the resident and the neighbour the same letter, it was unable to find that preference given to one resident over another.
2. The landlord said it was still waiting for the noise machine to come back from repair but it would contact the resident as soon as it was available. It said its notes indicated that it had reviewed his noise recordings. It said it was unable to identify any loud noises or statutory noise when listened to. It said it had invited the resident to attend its service centre to review the recording with an officer, but he did not attend.
3. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response and offered a total of £70 in compensation to reflect the failure.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord was allowing the neighbour’s ongoing ASB and noise due to their disability. He said in doing so, the landlord was disregarding his own disabilities. The resident said he had received death threats against him from other people on the estate and the landlord had not helped him. He said the staff do not respond or take any action. As an outcome to his complaint, he would like the landlord to take action in relation to the concerns, move him from the property, and fix its internal issues around poor communication.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord commissioned “Environmental Protection” to undertake 3 subjective noise assessments at the resident’s property. The assessments took place between 5 August 2024 and 17 September 2024. The report provided on 14 October 2024 concluded that the noise was normal domestic noise. It said that the noise was not intrusive and did not unreasonably interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of the resident’s home. It said it could not take into account individual sensitives or personal circumstances.
The landlord also installed a noise monitoring machine in the resident’s property on 10 October 2024 which it then collected on 24 October 2024. The landlord concluded that there was no evidence of harassment or deliberate noises. The landlord advised the resident on 26 November 2024 that it would be closing the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint was about privacy and safety concerns with both his own and his neighbours CCTV cameras. How the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 for CCTV would be a matter for the information commissioner’s office (ICO) to consider. We can, however, look at whether the landlord responded fairly and reasonably to the resident’s concerns.
The resident has alleged the landlord has discriminated against him. It is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine that the resident has been the victim of discrimination as set out in the Equality Act 2010. That is a matter for the courts. This Service’s role is to consider whether the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and procedures, given all the circumstances of the case. This includes consideration as to whether the landlord had demonstrated that it had accounted for any known vulnerabilities in its handling of the case.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says this Service may not consider matters which have already been decided upon, by this Service or another Ombudsman. The matters decided upon in previous determinations or which are currently under separate investigation are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. To clarify, this investigation will focus on the events which took place from 30 May 2024 onwards. Any events referred to which pre-date this timeframe will be for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB and noise

The landlord’s ASB policy states that to determine how it triages a report and what controlled measures it can take, it will assess all residents reporting an incident for their risk and vulnerability. It confirms that residents can report ASB in person, in writing, over the phone, by email or through its website. It says it works closely with the integrated gangs unit and is committed to effective action with partners such as the Police and social services.
It should be noted that for a landlord to adopt any firm measures against an alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance, it would require evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the noise reported by the resident reached that threshold. Further, we cannot establish whether a party is responsible for ASB or tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had noted the resident’s reports of noise and ASB from his neighbour and their tenant, it also confirmed that “others” had reported the noise too. It was positive for the landlord to confirm that it would install a noise machine within the resident’s property to monitor the situation. This would help the landlord to gather any evidence of the reported noise and to determine next steps.
The landlord confirmed it intended to speak with the neighbour regarding their CCTV, however, it did not confirm if it would speak to them about the reports. Given there were other reports made and the issue was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2024. He asked what was happening with the noise machine as the one due on 1 August 2024 did not work. He said he had been recording the noise on the noise app and wanted to know what had happened at the meeting with his neighbour. An officer responded the same day to say they had been off work due to sickness and apologised for the lack of response. They updated the resident on the meeting with the neighbour and confirmed it would listen to the recordings. They said they would check if there was an alternative noise machine. The response was reasonable.
The landlord’s internal notes dated 9 September 2024 said it had spoken with the neighbour. It confirmed the resident’s noise recordings had been listened to and it could not hear any loud noises within them. It said it had organised for the resident to attend to listen to the recordings, but he did not show up. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 2 response and confirmed it would arrange to install the noise machine once it was back from repair.
The landlord’s actions and action taken following the stage 2 response showed proportionate attempts to collect evidence of the noise nuisance and follow up on the steps it had agreed to take with the resident. While it concluded that the noise did not meet the threshold for further action, the landlord has shown how it reached this decision in line with its policy and without preferential treatment to the neighbour.
In his formal complaint, the resident also reported that he had received death threats from gangs and although the landlord had spoken with them, he was continuing to receive the threats. He stated that he did not feel safe and the landlord had not progressed a move.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the threats were deeply concerning and acknowledged that a video doorbell would assist him in feeling secure. But there is no evidence to show it considered what steps it could take to address the ongoing threats and risk to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s complaint about it installing cameras, as well as what action it had taken to address the concerns.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to a separate complaint which it responded to in April 2024 regarding the gang. It said the resident could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. While it was correct in its advice regarding any dissatisfaction with its previous stage 2 response, the landlord did not address the resident’s ongoing concerns since April 2024 and his reports of risk to his safety. If the landlord felt the information provided in its previous stage 2 response still applied, then it should have stated that, with the reasons why. In the absence of this information, we cannot determine that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was appropriate or in line with its policies.
There is also no evidence of the landlord considering or responding to the resident’s concerns about a move. While the landlord may have previously responded to the resident on the matter, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided its position on a priority move in light of the recent reports and whether this impacted its position. In not doing, so the landlord appeared dismissive and did not show how it had followed its procedures.
The resident’s formal complaint also referred to the ASB team being unresponsive to his calls and emails. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable in that it agreed such actions were not acceptable, it asked for more information so it could investigate and address the matters. It said it would personally ensure that it improved its communication channels.
The resident provided the requested information in his stage 2 escalation. It was not appropriate that the landlord then failed to acknowledge the information in its stage 2 response. It did not confirm the outcome of any investigation or action taken to improve communication channels with the resident. This would not have managed the resident’s expectations. It also likely caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in compiling the information and not receiving an outcome.
To conclude, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise. While the landlord took proportionate steps to address the noise complaints made by the resident, it has not shown that it took appropriate action in relation to the resident’s reports of threats, feeling unsafe, and wanting to move. The landlord also did not manage the resident’s expectations when it stated it would investigate the reports of poor communication by its ASB team.
The resident has stated that he is still experiencing threats from gangs within the building and would like to move to ensure his safety. An order will be made for the landlord to provide its position on all outstanding matters.
In line with its compensation guidance for failure to acknowledge failings and put them right, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident for the following:
1. £100 to put right the detriment caused to the resident by not suitably responding to the residents reports of ongoing threats and safety concerns.
2. £100 to put right the detriment caused to the resident by not acknowledging or responding to his request to move.
3. £100 to put right the detriment caused to the resident by the lack of follow up and outcome into investigating the resident’s reports of poor communication from staff members.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding CCTV

In its letter to the resident dated 4 June 2024, the landlord explained that the resident had installed a CCTV camera without permission from the landlord. It appropriately explained how it had interpreted the relevant legislation to determine that the resident’s camera failed to comply with the obligations. It outlined how the resident could obtain permission from it and what information it would need to consider the request. As stated, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if the landlord had interpreted the legislation correctly. However, the landlord’s initial communication regarding the camera was fair and reasonable.
It was also fair and reasonable for the landlord to extend the deadline provided to the resident upon notification that he was not in the country. Furthermore, it considered the resident’s reports that his neighbour had CCTV which likely failed to comply with the legislation too. It then sent a similar letter to the neighbour notifying them of their breach. While there was a delay in removing the CCTV on the neighbour’s part, the landlord evidenced that it escalated the matter until the neighbour had also removed their CCTV, which was appropriate. No evidence has been provided from the landlord to suggest that it gave the neighbour preferential treatment throughout the process.
Although, in its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident felt the neighbour was receiving preferential treatment and that the landlord had overlooked his own disabilities. The landlord highlighted that the neighbour was also required to move their camera but stated that it needed to address the perception of unequal treatment. It said it aimed to ensure that all residents regardless of their disabilities received fair and equal treatment.
As the landlord had stated that the perception of unequal treatment should be addressed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expanded on how it intended to do so. There is no evidence that it did, which is a failing.
In line with its obligations, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities and whether it needed to take any additional steps to manage the risks or any safeguarding concerns identified. The resident was alleging that the landlord had taken the neighbour’s disability into account but not his own. By carrying out the above action, this may have assisted with the resident’s perception of unequal treatment being given to his neighbour.
In his formal complaint, the resident raised how having a video doorbell was the only way to know if people were waiting for him outside his property and stated that it had been a deterrent for such people in the past. He said it helped him to know who to let into the property. The resident also stated that the landlord had previously promised to install a camera and it never happened.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s safety concerns and that his doorbell was a critical tool for him to feel secure in his property. It was reasonable for it to confirm it would consider any information from the police or the resident’s GP to support the positioning of the camera. However, as already stated it did not provide its stance on installing its own CCTV or any other action it could take to assist the resident in feeling safe in the absence of his CCTV.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident could have a video doorbell attached to his front door but he could not place it in a position to film the communal areas. The landlord’s approach was fair in the absence of any additional information to support the previous positioning of the camera. It showed consideration to both the relevant legislation and the resident’s needs.
The resident has since stated that the current positioning of his CCTV means he is unable to clearly see who is outside of his property. However, we have not seen evidence of the resident raising this issue within the timeframe of this investigation or completing a written request for installing CCTV in his preferred position.
Overall, while the landlord has reasonably explained its reasons for why it required the resident to move the camera, it did not consider what additional actions it could have taken to address the subsequent concerns raised by the resident. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about CCTV.
In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord must pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is to account for and put right the failure to consider and respond fully to the resident’s concerns about the risks posed to him by moving the camera.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation into the landlord in May 2025. The investigation found that similar to the findings of this case, there was a lack of risk management across all areas investigated. It highlighted a lack of staff training around safeguarding and vulnerability. The landlord had stated that residents were dealt with on a case by case basis. The report pointed out the risks of inconsistency with such an approach and this report has highlighted this further.
The Ombudsman made recommendations as part of the investigation. These included the landlord implementing new systems to resolve the issues surrounding gaps in data and vulnerabilities. The landlord has committed to provide an update on this by 1 September 2025. The landlord has also since implemented a policy named “supporting residents with additional needs to thrive housing policy.” The policy offers comprehensive guidance for landlord staff which should enable a more inclusive and personalised service to residents. As such, no further orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s internal processes.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days which was reasonable. It provided its stage 2 response 38 working days after the stage 2 escalation which was not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised for its failing. It offered a total of £70 for the failure, which was in line with its compensation policy.
As highlighted in this report, there is evidence of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations within its internal complaints procedure and not following up on its commitments. This was shown in its request for the resident to provide details of specific staff members who had failed to respond and promising to personally investigate the matter. There was then no evidence of the landlord doing so upon receipt of this information and in the stage 2 response. In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident had raised a number of complaints about a lack of response from staff members in the past. It did not explain why this meant it could not respond to his more recent concerns.
Also, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had already provided a response to the issue of gang members and CCTV. It then did not provide any further position on the issue of the gang members and the safety concerns raised. This was despite the resident raising it as a continuous issue after the previous stage 2 response and the landlord stating that it was “deeply concerning” in its stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have at least provided its position on the current situation and to review any possible risks.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlord’s must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In investigating this complaint, we have found that the landlord failed to do so. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In line with its compensation guidance, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 to put right its failure to handle the complaint in line with its obligations.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB and noise.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding CCTV.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord must apologise for the additional failures identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must provide its position to the resident on the following:
1. The resident’s reports of ongoing threats from a gang in the building. It should highlight what action it has taken and/or intends to take to assist the resident, in line with its policies and safeguarding procedures.
2. It must complete a risk assessment with the resident, taking into account all reported vulnerabilities within the household and risk factors presented by any reported ASB. If any risks are identified, it should confirm what action it will take, if any, to mitigate the risks.
3. It must provide its current position on installing CCTV in the areas which the resident is unable to film via his video doorbell.
4. Its must provide its current position on the resident’s request to move and the options available to him.
5. The landlord must confirm the timescales in which it should respond to communication from the resident and how it will ensure that it adheres to those timescales moving forward.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £570 in compensation, which is broken down as:
1. £300 as outlined for the landlord’s handling of the ASB and noise.
2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the concerns regarding CCTV.
3. £170 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is inclusive of the £70 offered by the landlord for the delays in responding to the complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.