Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hackney (202328406)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328406

London Borough of Hackney

28 May 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 reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since April 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. During the complaints process the resident made the landlord aware that he suffers with his mental health.
  2. On 4 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said there was what he believed to be excessive noise coming from his upstairs neighbour. He said the noise would start from around 5.30am and was from the neighbour’s 2 young children running around. He said he had spoken to his neighbour about the noise but had been unable to resolve the matter with him. He asked that the landlord intervene and speak to the neighbour about the noise nuisance.
  3. On 13 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it had spoken to his neighbour about the noise. It said he had confirmed that he would try to ensure the household noise did not disturb the resident. It also said it had closed the case but had provided the resident with the noise app (the app) so he could share any future noise disturbances with it.
  4. The resident raised his complaint on 20 September 2023. He said the landlord had not taken any steps to resolve the noise nuisance from his neighbour and had only asked him to install the app. He said his phone would not be able to pick up the type of noise coming from his neighbour’s property.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023. It said that an investigation had taken place and it had made genuine attempts to gather evidence but it had been unable to do so. It said this was in part because the resident had chosen not to use the council’s app. It said that as such, it had been unable to find any failings with the way it had handled his reports of noise nuisance.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 October 2023. He said the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued late and had not addressed that:
    1. It had not informed the neighbour of the resident’s right to ‘peace and quiet’ under his tenancy agreement.
    2. He had not refused to use the app but rather had been unable to activate it.
    3. The relationship between himself and his neighbour had totally broken down.
    4. The noise was heard during an occupational therapy assessment and this was brought to the landlord’s attention on 24 August 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. It said the resident had not provided any information via the app and as such its investigations had been inconclusive due to a lack of clear evidence. It confirmed that there was an open anti-social behaviour case and a further visit to the resident’s block was booked for 13 November 2023. It said that following that visit it would decide if further efforts were required to use the app or if an alternative method of collecting this information could be used. However, it acknowledged that there had been a delay in it issuing the stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
  8. Following the issue of the stage 2 response, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 13 November 2023. It then wrote to the resident on 21 November 2023 with an update on its findings and steps taken to minimise the noise.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 12 December 2023 and confirmed he wanted us to investigate the complaint. On 28 December 2023 he provided additional information about why he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint responses. He said he felt the landlord had failed to properly investigate his complaint and had not followed its anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance policies.

Assessment and findings

Noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy, specifically the section on monitoring noise, says it has a duty to investigate noise complaints from residents. It says the way it responds depends on the nature of the problem, the time that it happens and whether or not it is a first time complaint or recurring problem. It says that, If appropriate, it will investigate reports of noise nuisance if the threshold is met. It says this includes working closely with the noise pollution team who can serve a formal or statutory noise abatement notice.
  2. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether noise reported by a resident amounts to anti–social behaviour or statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
  3. When receiving reports of anti–social behaviour or noise nuisance, landlords should carry out an investigation into the reports. This may include speaking to both parties to gather their version of events, speaking to any witnesses, reviewing diary logs or noise recordings, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of noise nuisance or anti–social behaviour can be extremely limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good industry practice.
  4. It is unclear precisely when the noise from the resident’s neighbour (a leaseholder) started as in some of his correspondence he said it was February 2023 and in others he said it had been going on for over a year. However, the earliest evidence seen of the resident reporting the noise to the landlord is dated 4 February 2023. The landlord responded on 13 March 2023 and confirmed that it had opened an anti-social behaviour case following the resident’s report. It said it had spoken to his neighbour, that he had been responsive and he had said he would try to make sure the household noise would not disturb the resident. The landlord also confirmed that it had provided the resident with the app for him to report any further instances of noise nuisance. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the resident had chosen not to use the app and due to a lack of evidence it had closed the case.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the neighbour regarding the resident’s reports as well as providing the resident with the app. However, it has not confirmed when it spoke to the neighbour nor why it took over a month for it to respond to the resident. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that this delay was unreasonable. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on him.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the resident made any further reports of noise nuisance between March 2023 and raising his complaint in September 2023. It was at this time that the landlord opened a new anti-social behaviour case in order to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has said that on 24 August 2023 an occupational therapist made the landlord aware of the noise they had heard during an assessment. However, we have not seen evidence of this report nor its contents.
  7. In its complaint responses the landlord said it had been unable to determine if the noise from the neighbour’s property amounted to unacceptable behaviour due to a lack of evidence. In particular, it referred to the resident choosing not to use the app it had given him. However, the resident has disputed this and said he was unable to activate the app.
  8. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident told the landlord he had been unable to activate the app before 26 September 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response mentions that that email chain started on 22 September 2023. The landlord’s response dated 27 September 2023 provided the resident with a link to a video tutorial on how to activate the app. Despite this, the resident said he remained unable to activate the app. The landlord then provided him with noise log sheets following a meeting on 17 October 2023. The earliest evidence seen of the resident submitting noise logs is dated 3 November 2023. In the email the resident said that using texts between him and his neighbour from September to October 2023 he had compiled backdated noise logs for that period.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and assist the resident to activate the app as this is one of the most effective ways to collect evidence of alleged noise nuisance. It was also appropriate for the landlord to provide an alternative means of the resident recording the noise when he continued to be unable to use the app. The Ombudsman has also noted that in its stage 1 response the landlord referred to other alternative methods of gathering evidence about noise nuisance, namely a noise recording device or the use of a professional witness. It said there was a waiting list for the noise recording device but that these would be considered as part of the ongoing investigation.
  10. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that following the resident’s submission of noise logs the landlord visited the neighbour’s property. The landlord has not shown when this visit took place but an internal email dated 15 November 2023 says the visit took place that week. The email also says it found that the neighbour had laminate flooring but had put rugs down and the children’s rooms were carpeted. Following this visit the landlord updated the resident on 17 November 2023 and said that it had given the neighbour additional advice about how he could try to minimise noise.
  11. The Ombudsman is aware that after the landlord issued its stage 2 response it continued to investigate the reports of noise nuisance made by the resident. In an email to the resident dated 9 January 2024 the landlord said that due to the lack of noise recordings on an approved device there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance and little evidence of excessive noise. As such it had no basis for lease enforcement against the neighbour. It said the neighbour had co-operated with all aspects of its investigation such as allowing a surveyor to survey his home, installing flooring with adequate levels of sound insulation, leaving his home with his family more regularly than usual in order to reduce any noise and laying rugs down in various parts of his home in order to reduce noise.
  12. Overall, based on all the information provided, the landlord acted proportionately in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It was reasonable for it to visit the neighbour’s property, talk to him about the noise and work with him to try and minimise it. Additionally, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord not to take any lease enforcement action without sufficient evidence to show that the noise coming from the neighbour’s property amounted to statutory noise nuisance. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) and the landlord’s complaints policy say it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 20 September 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023. This was 21 working days after the resident raised his complaint.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s failings as set out above, can be summarised as failing to issue its complaint response within the timescales set out in the Code and its complaints policy.
  4. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised had been a delay in it issuing its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this failing. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but which have no permanent impact. Additionally, we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint due to this delay. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which adequately resolved its poor complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation its handling of reports of noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determinations are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.