London Borough of Hackney (202504163)

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant of a flat within a purpose built block owned by the landlord. They raised concerns that the landlord was not effectively responding to their reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. Though the actions the landlord took to investigate the alleged ASB were reasonable and proportionate, it did not create an action plan for the resident or communicate effectively with them during the case.
6. The landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint after they expressed that its stage 1 response had not resolved the complaint to their satisfaction.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

7. Several of the resident’s complaint points related to how the safer neighbourhood team had responded to their allegations about their neighbour using cannabis and its communication with them. The safer neighbourhood team is part of the police. We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over. As such we will not be commenting on the actions of the safer neighbourhood team. If they are unhappy with the actions of the police they may be able to complain to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
8. The resident has told us they want to move to a different property on medical grounds and they are unhappy with how the landlord has responded to this. This is not an issue we can investigate or make orders about. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (including those who need to move on medical or welfare grounds) are a duty it has as a local authority under the Housing Act 1996. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of their request to be moved due to medical grounds, they may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

What we have investigated

9. The evidence provided by both parties is unclear regarding when the resident first reported the alleged ASB. The landlord said it first met with them on 31 January 2024 to discuss issues with the reported incense and cannabis fumes. It completed a risk assessment on 13 February 2024 which recorded they were at low risk from the alleged ASB. Most risk factors it noted were their individual circumstances around receiving cancer treatment, which meant the alleged ASB had a greater impact on them. It noted the resident had previously reported the suspected cannabis use to the police, it referred them to the police’s safer neighbourhood team in line with its risk assessment procedure.
10. The landlord’s records provide contradicting information about when it opened an ASB case for the resident’s reports of cannabis and incense fumes. Both of its formal responses state it opened this on 16 July 2024, however its ASB case review said it opened a case about their reports of cannabis smoke on 30 April 2024. Regardless of when it opened the case, there is no evidence it informed the resident of how it would approach the alleged ASB or that it agreed an action plan with them as it should have in line with its ASB policy.
11. The landlord recorded on 3 June 2024 that the resident had reported the incense and cannabis smoke from the neighbour’s flat was causing a nuisance. It stated it had written to all tenants in the building about being considerate when burning candles or incense. It sent a further letter to all tenants on 8 July 2024 saying there had been reports of “overbearing smells within the building” and asked them to be mindful of others when burning candles or incense. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach for it to take in line with its ASB policy given it had recorded in its risk assessment there was no evidence they were being deliberately targeted by the alleged ASB.
12. The landlord carried out an inspection of the building on 16 August 2024 and recorded there was no smell of incense or cannabis. It interviewed the neighbour on 20 August 2024 about the alleged ASB. The landlord noted as part of the interview it had asked other residents if they had experienced issues with fumes from the neighbour’s flat. Only 2 reported smelling incense “at times” which they had said did not affect them. This was in line with its ASB policy.
13. Around 10 November 2024 the landlord held a meeting with the police regarding the resident’s ASB case. It recorded the police’s safer neighbourhood team had investigated the neighbour’s property and had found no evidence of cannabis use. Based on this the landlord’s decision to take no further action on the resident’s allegation was reasonable.
14. On 12 November 2024 the landlord created a repair request to inspect the ventilation of the resident’s property. This was to see if it could be improved to address their concerns about the smell of incense. This was appropriate action and demonstrates it considered alternative resolutions. The landlord inspected the property on 29 November 2024 and recorded there were 3 working extractor fans which suitably ventilated the property. It recommended that no improvements were necessary.
15. As part of the resident’s complaint they told the landlord they had been stalked by a different neighbour for a considerable amount of time. They said this had been “mishandled” but provided no further information about the incident or what they considered the landlord had done wrong. From the available evidence the resident reported this to the landlord in 2018, there is no evidence they reported further incidents until their complaint of 22 December 2024. As such the landlord’s response to outline the action it had taken previously and to say it would work in conjunction with any police investigation into the matter was reasonable.
16. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case about the allegation of incense and cannabis fumes from the neighbour’s flat shortly after its stage 1 response of 22 January 2025. Its ASB policy says it will review cases at least once a month and keep the reporting resident up to date with any progress. We have not seen any evidence it communicated with the resident about their ASB case following 16 July 2024, other than its response to their complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
17. On 7 March 2025 the landlord told the resident though their application for an ASB case review did not meet the threshold it had decided to review it. It explained it carried out multiple inspections since 30 April 2024 and found no evidence of drug use at any of their neighbour’s flats. It noted there had been a smell of incense in the communal area which is why it sent out letters to all residents. It said it had taken account of their vulnerability by completing a risk assessment and had previously offered them a move to a different property on medical grounds, which they refused. The landlord’s decision to complete an ASB review was reasonable to resolve their concerns.
18. Overall, the actions the landlord took to investigate the alleged ASB were reasonable and proportionate. However, it did not communicate with the resident about their case in line with its policy or provide an action plan. As it did not acknowledge or take action to remedy this in its responses, we have made a failure finding.

19. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 December 2024, it acknowledged the complaint the same day. It issued its stage 1 response on 22 January 2025, 19 working days later. While this exceeded the 10-working day timescale set out in its complaints procedure, it had communicated that it needed an extension as it was waiting on additional information. This was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The resident replied to the landlord stage 1 response on 27 January 2025. They did not explicitly say they wanted to escalate their complaint but referred to several areas of the stage 1 response they disagreed with. There was no evidence it replied to this or the resident’s follow-up email of 24 February 2025 requesting a response. In line with the Code if a complaint is not resolved to a resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be escalated to stage 2 of its complaint process. As such, it should have made reasonable efforts to understand why they remained unhappy with its response and confirm whether they wanted to escalate their complaint.
21. The resident explicitly told the landlord they wanted to escalate their complaint on 3 March 2025, it acknowledged this on 10 March 2025. It issued its stage 2 response on 4 April 2025, 19 working days later. This was in line with the timescales of its complaint procedure and the Code.
22. At both stages of the complaint process the landlord’s responses addressed the points the resident raised in their complaint. It explained the actions it had taken and gave clear reasons for its decision that it responded appropriately to the alleged ASB. This was in line with the expectations of the Code.
23. That said, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge that it did not respond to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction of 27 January 2025 or offer any remedy for this. Due to the limited impact of this failing, we have not ordered the landlord to provide any financial remedy but still consider it to be a service failure it needs to apologise for.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. As outlined previously there were discrepancies in the landlord’s account of events about when it took certain actions during the ASB case. It should ensure written records of these are kept so it can provide clear explanations if ASB case reviews or complaints are raised about its handling of reported ASB.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident during the ASB case was poor. It should ensure it keeps residents updated on progress and its intended actions so that it can demonstrate it is dealing fairly with the case and to manage their expectations about how it will respond.