London Borough of Hackney (202417921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417921

London Borough of Hackney

8 December 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including concerns about staff conduct.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that began on 28 November 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor of a 5-storey building.
In October 2023, the resident reported to her landlord increased noise from upstairs neighbour (Neighbour A), including loud bangs, slamming doors, and moving furniture at all times of the day and night.
The resident said the landlord visited her property on 29 January 2024 and subsequently issued general noise warning letters to all residents. An ASB case was opened on 6 February 2024. The landlord interviewed Neighbour A, provided the resident access to the Noise App, called the resident on a weekly basis (it stated the calls went unanswered) and conducted monthly case reviews.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord considered closing the case due to lack of engagement and insufficient evidence. When it called the resident to explain this, she disputed having been contacted by it and said she had provided her own noise recordings because the Noise App had failed to capture the sudden noises effectively.
The resident made a complaint on 26 March 2024 because:
1. the noise disturbance, including moving of items, banging, and making loud sounds, were ongoing. And this was disturbing her sleep.
2. she felt the investigating officer had:
  1. not dealt with the case when it was first reported in October 2023, despite making 44 further reports since January 2024.
  2. closed the case prematurely on 13 March 2024 without good reason. And she had concerns it had not reviewed all the evidence she had provided.
  3. was not being objective about the counter allegations the neighbour had made against her. Nor had they answered her concerns about how the investigation into this matter had been conducted.
3. she was worried about her safety because the ASB was “severe and incessant” as well as a “safety risk”.
4. she wanted the landlord to investigate the conduct of the said officer and for an independent officer to conduct a further investigation into her concerns about ASB.
On 8 May 2024 the resident asked that her complaint be escalated because:
1. the neighbour’s behaviour was ongoing, and she considered it was a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Harassment Act 1997.
2. there were delays and a lack of communication when she made reports to it from October 2023 about the ASB. And it had not considered the impact of the ASB on her.
3. the landlord had delayed in re-opening the case in March 2024, after explaining it had only done so in answer to an MP enquiry in February 2024. And this demonstrated a lack of urgency despite being a “serious case”.
4. she was still unaware of why the case had been closed in March 2024. Especially given all the evidence she had provided to the officer involved. And she believed they had not conducted a thorough investigation. Nor did they try to contact her to discuss her concerns on 7 March 2024.
5. the investigating officer had refused to provide their contact details to her, and she wanted a direct contact to report her concerns to.
6. she felt “significant weight” had been given to “frivolous” counter reports from her neighbour. In part, she thought this was because the landlord believed them to be a police officer, but it had provided no evidence to support this assumption.
7. she wanted an impartial investigation of her reports. And the landlord to account for “its assumption” her neighbour was a police officer because she had concerns there were “significant signs being uncovered including potential interdepartmental corruption and [a] cover up”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 May 2024. It said:
1. it had opened an ASB case in January 2024 in response to the resident’s reports.
2. it had visited both the resident and the neighbour to take statements and discuss the reports. The neighbour made counter reports about the resident including that she was “making malicious reports about them when they were not at home.”
3. it adopted an evidence based approach and considered both parties statements when gathering evidence. And that the resident had still not provided all the evidence she said she had to support her allegations.
4. it had:
  1. offered her the Noise App to assist her in monitoring and capturing evidence of noise disturbance.
  2. referred her case to a specialist ASB officer because of concerns that she felt unsafe and was not choosing to stay at her property as a result.
  3. considered the investigation of her initial officer and found they could not have taken further action because of a lack of evidence.
5. it also acknowledged that “communications were strained” and that due to the stress of the situation, it warranted a referral to its specialist ASB officer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2024 and said she had already explained she wanted her complaint to be escalated on 8 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 August 2024. It said:
1. it had escalated her concerns about its response to the MP to a manager. And they found:
  1. no opinion had been given about an “alleged attack” because it was not present when this was said to have happened. Otherwise, it would have commenced legal proceedings, which it did not.
  2. it should not have referred to the neighbour’s occupation in the response. However, it did this because the resident was reporting a disturbance when the neighbour was not at the property, because they were working.
  3. it was unclear if it had attended on 7 March 2024, and recognised this may have been the date a case note concerning a home visit had been added to the file.
  4. it was still establishing the “credibility” of the evidence and reports. Therefore, the case was open, and the investigation was ongoing.
  5. it recognised the initial appointment scheduled by the officer was rescheduled. But did not go ahead because the case had been referred in the interim to a specialist ABS officer. And the newly assigned officer would be responsible for discussing the allegations she had made.
2. despite its findings regarding the MP response, this would not have changed the outcome of the ASB investigation.
3. it considered that the resident’s concerns about race-related favouritism towards the neighbour was “unfounded”. And asked the resident to substantiate the “serious claim” with “evidence”. On this basis, and because of geographical restrictions, it would not reallocate another officer to the resident’s “patch”. But assured her the ASB investigation was not being conducted by the officer in question.
4. it had suggested downsizing to the resident as there was scope for her to move, and this may have helped with her concerns about the noise disturbance.
5. as there had been different versions of events, it was difficult to corroborate her reports. And the ”extensive” evidence she had would be sent to the manager who conducted the review of its MP’s response to look into further.
6. it was currently reviewing all the evidence, liaising with the police, and consulting its legal team regarding injunctive proceedings.
7. it would consider alternative means to the Noise App, including installing noise monitoring equipment, following her concerns it was not effective.
8. it provided an extract from the tenancy agreement and the Information Commissioner’s Office about the placement of CCTV. It said she could request authorisation from the council for a camera if she could meet the required obligations.
9. it would conduct a risk assessment because the resident had said she felt unsafe and was not staying at home because of this.
10. overall, it found no fault with its investigations to date. But recognised delays in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. To put this right, is offered £120 broken down as:
  1. £50 for the “impact of the resident’s circumstances”, including distress and inconvenience.
  2. £70 for its delays in issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 28 November 2024 because:
1. she felt the landlord’s complaint responses were “full of lies”. Including its response to an allegation her neighbour made about her “attacking” them.
2. she could not’ stay at her property for the previous 9 months because she felt it was not safe to return. Despite this, she said the landlord had told her it did not feel there were any issues.
3. she felt the landlord had not considered all of her reports or evidence because it said it did not have time. And because it had told the neighbour information it should not have regarding CCTV, which had aggravated the issues.
4. she wanted the landlord to:
  1. install a ring doorbell.
  2. investigate the conduct of the officer in her complaint as well as the housing management team.
  3. issue a caution and injunctive proceedings against her neighbour. And resolve the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We recognise part of the resident’s concerns were about the conduct of the initial ASB officer regarding their investigation and communications with her. The landlord also responded to concerns about race-based favouritism.
Our investigations are unable to assess whether discrimination or prejudice has taken place, as these are legal matters which are better suited to a court to decide upon. We will consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and decide whether or not the landlord followed its legal and policy obligations and good practice and acted fairly in all the circumstances.
Further, we consider the landlord responsible for any actions and/or omissions of any staff members taken on its behalf. This means we will only refer to the actions of individuals as those of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, our determination and any associated remedies would be made against the landlord rather than an individual.
The resident explained that the ASB was impacting her health, in particular her ability to sleep. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident told us that she had not stayed in her property since April 2024. She said that she continued to have the same concerns about the landlord’s actions concerning her ASB case. In particular, it was not communicating with her about its progress.
We recognise this continues to be a difficult time for the resident. However, our investigation may only assess the events that occurred between October 2023 (when the resident said the events began) and August 2024 (when the landlord issued its final response).
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

ASB

It is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has or has not committed a nuisance or ASB. It is our role to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practices and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
Our approach to considering ASB complaints is further set out on our website. However, we expect landlords to follow clear, practical policies. These should include action plans, regular communication, risk checks, and working with outside agencies. Landlords should set clear expectations with residents early on, explain any limits to their powers, and respond in a timely manner to reports. They should also keep good records of what is reported and what action they will take.
When dealing with ASB, the landlord will agree on next steps with the resident, review the case each month, update the resident in writing, and discuss the case before closing it. The policy also states that the landlord aims to base actions on evidence, support victims, and take fair action against those causing problems. It also works with police, noise pollution teams and CCTV providers. Early actions include:
1. mediation.
2. warnings.
3. good neighbour agreements.

More serious action may include:

acceptable behaviour contracts.
community protection notices.
civil injunctions.
legal action to remove someone from their home.

The landlord’s records show it opened an ASB case on 6 February 2024, following a home visit to the resident at the end of January 2024. The evidence shows the home visit took place following reports the landlord had received from Neighbour A about the resident. It was appropriate, and in accordance with its policy, for the landlord to discuss the report with the resident. From the evidence it is unclear what discussion took place, but it was appropriate for the landlord to open a case if the resident had expressed concern about the behaviour of her neighbour in return. It is noted that the landlord informed the resident she could not have CCTV covering other residents’ homes, but that it did give her access to the Noise App a few days later.
While the landlord’s actions were reasonable, there is no evidence that it conducted a risk assessment to understand the impact on the resident. Nor that it created an action plan explaining the actions it intended to take or wrote to her about its progress. As such, there was a departure from its policy and this was a failing.
Taking such action would have helped to ensure that the resident was adequately supported and that it had managed her expectations about its approach. It would have also been reasonable to have requested a police disclosure to investigate the incident further to inform its decision making. Further it would have been reasonable for it to consider any further measures it could take i.e. mediation or drawing up a good neighbour agreement to try to resolve the dispute before it escalated.
The resident said she made over 55 reports to it about noise disturbance from Neighbour A between October 2023 and August 2024. The landlord provided limited evidence of the resident’s reports. However, it provided evidence in its ASB log indicating that it had tried to call the resident on a two-weekly basis from February 2024, leading up to her complaint (26 March 2024) and conducted monthly manager reviews on the case.
The resident showed us evidence of reporting noise incidents between January 2024 and April 2024 to the council’s noise department through its online webpage. We note these reports were not made directly to the landlord. We also understand from our discussions with the resident that she was unaware of the distinction between the council’s wider responsibilities towards noise and the landlord’s responsibilities towards what it considered noise related ASB. However, when the landlord did contact the resident, there is no evidence to suggest it identified this, despite noting there was an absence of reports from her during this period. It would have been reasonable to have had further discussions with her to ascertain why it had not received any reports. Had it done so it may have identified this potential barrier to progressing the case.
We consider it was positive that the landlord was making consistent attempts to contact the resident between February and March 2024. And conducting monthly management reviews in line with its ASB policy. However, the communications it did have with the resident during this time were not effective at gathering all of the resident’s reports.
The landlord considered closing the case in March 2024 because its ASB log had noted no engagement by the resident with the majority of its contact attempts. It also noted there was no evidence on file to take further action. It discussed this with the resident on or around 13 March 2024. This was in line with its ASB policy to discuss cases with residents before closing them.
The resident explained on this call that the noise was ongoing. She described dropping items, scraping, and slamming doors. The landlord asked about the use of the Noise App, and found she did not want to use it because “the noise was not consistent”. The landlord asked if she would send her own recordings, but it said the resident did not want to do that because she felt the officer was “taking sides”. The landlord advised that the type of noise being reported was everyday household noise. And that it would be “challenging” to progress the case without evidence. The landlord also contacted Neighbour A and found they were putting rugs down to help limit noise transference.
We consider the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns about the use of the Noise App. And explained it was happy to receive alternative recordings to assist it with its investigations. It also managed her expectations about taking the matter forward in the absence of evidence. The landlord also acted fairly to address the resident’s concerns with her neighbour. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence also shows the landlord kept the ASB case open so that it could monitor any changes following the neighbour putting rugs in the property.
However, the landlord did not offer the use of noise monitoring equipment or discuss the process of liaising with the council’s noise pollution team if it had determined from the evidence that the noise threshold was met. As this was a measure in its policy, it is unclear why it was not utilised. That it did not meant the landlord did not consider all the options available to it when considering what action was appropriate to take.
The evidence shows that during April 2024, the landlord said it was still without evidence from the resident to support her noise reports. As such it considered the noise to be “domestic and not a tenancy breach”. It called the resident around this time and conducted a home visit on 9 April 2024. It said these attempts to contact her were unsuccessful. However, we have seen evidence that it conducted further investigations, which led it raising further concerns with Neighbour A. When addressing those, Neighbour A raised counter allegations against the resident regarding vexatious complaints.
Following this, the landlord called the resident on or around 12 April 2024. It recorded having discussed the progress of her formal complaint. And that the resident said she had evidence of her noise reports. It noted that it felt the case would benefit from escalation to a specialist ASB officer because it had “already intervened extensively over 3 months but was no closer to a resolution.”
While it may have been appropriate to take this approach, there is no evidence it explained this to the resident. This was a failure to evidence it had set out what it intended to do to progress the ASB case. It also did not record any discussions with the resident around the need to receive further evidence to take the matter forward. This would have been consistent with its previous communications about the matter.
We note that there was an unreasonable delay in escalating the resident’s case to the specialist officer. Although it was referred on 29 April 2024, it was not picked up by the relevant officer until 3 June 2024. This was because there was an administrative error where the case was not re-assigned on the system. We also note that during the time the case was escalated, the officer responsible was on annual leave but it was not picked up by another member of staff. There is no evidence that the delay was explained to the resident. This was a failure to act transparently and to take accountability for its failings.
The specialist ASB officer discussed the case with the resident on 10 June 2024. The notes indicate a full and comprehensive discussion of the events with the resident from October 2023 onwards. And this included the resident explaining that she had not lived at the address since 5 April 2024. She expressed that the new flooring had not done anything to mitigate the noise transference.
The notes also show the landlord had recorded that the resident’s sleep had been impacted by the noise which had also negatively impacted the exams she was taking. She also said she was losing her hair. The landlord noted that the resident would send police reference numbers for some of the events, video evidence, and witness statements from other parties for some of the incidents. It said it would then review whether an injunction would be a possible avenue and speak with Neighbour A. That the landlord discussed the case and explained which actions it was going to take was reasonable.
Further there is no evidence that it conducted a risk assessment to understand the impact of the situation on the resident, despite the concerns she had expressed about her wellbeing. This was a further missed opportunity. In addition, while the landlord noted the resident’s concerns about her health and the overall impact on her daily life, it did not signpost her to relevant agencies such as her GP for support.
The resident reported on 28 June 2024 that she had seen on her CCTV that a child had been “dangled over her window” by Neighbour A. The landlord interviewed Neighbour A about this. It also noted it would request a disclosure from the police, consider mediation, contact social services, consider an injunction, and installing a noise recording machine. It is unclear if it explained which actions it intended to take. This is because of poor record-keeping. As such, we could not be satisfied that it was engaging with the resident about what it intended to do or managing her expectations about the situation.
While all of the measures the landlord considered during this time were available to it to consider under its ASB policy, there is no evidence it took action to implement any of them during the scope of this investigation. We note that the disclosure from the police did not go ahead because it could not gain consent from the resident. While this was understandable, there were other measures available to the landlord under its policy. There is no evidence it passed on its concerns regarding the nature of the resident’s report to the local safeguarding team, contacted the noise pollution team at the council so it could install noise monitoring equipment, discussed mediation with the parties, or sought advice from its legal team regarding an injunction. As such, we could not be satisfied the landlord took adequate steps to carry out any of the actions it was considering.
Between 14 June and 30 July 2024, the landlord also demonstrated it took the following steps:
1. tried to speak with various neighbours to understand if others were experiencing any noise disturbance.
2. attempted to call the resident but did not manage to speak with her on 17 July 2024. It is unclear what this call was about.
3. conducted monthly management reviews of the case.
4. reviewed a noise recording from the resident and said it was unclear where the noise was originating from.
We consider the landlord did not make frequent contact with the resident, as it had done previously, after the case was escalated. Further, the management reviews at this stage were a missed opportunity to review the progress of its action plans. As well as to assess whether the actions being considered were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
Prior to the landlord’s recent risk assessment completed in September 2025, the landlord has not provided any evidence of it completing a risk assessment previously. This is despite the resident’s complaint to the landlord dated 26 March 2024 stating ‘my safety is at serious risk’. In addition, the landlord acknowledged the need for a risk assessment in its stage 2 complaint response dated 2 August 2024. It confirmed its intention to conduct a risk assessment following the resident’s reports that she had moved out of the property because she felt unsafe.
The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 guidance confirms that it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to victims, including consideration of potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. A risk assessment is the assimilation of information to determine the risk of harm being posed to an individual. Made up of carefully structured questions, the assessment highlights risk at an early stage and prioritises it according to the level of severity. Once the level of risk has been identified, the assessment will then guide the case handling officer towards the appropriate and necessary steps to try to protect the victim from further harm. This includes a consideration of any safeguarding concerns.
A risk assessment is not merely a bureaucratic exercise, but integral to the management of ASB. This is because its identification of high-risk or medium-risk victims guides the subsequent handling of the case. The results of the assessment should be shared with other agencies that are supporting/protecting the victim. Not completing risk assessments early puts both the resident and the ASB case handler at a disadvantage.
These factors underline the importance of the landlord undertaking a risk assessment. The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment following the resident moving out of the property or considering her vulnerable status or safeguarding needs is reflective of a serious shortfall in its ASB case management.
It is ordered that the landlord amends its ASB policy to include the requirement to complete a risk assessment for all ASB cases, which should be regularly updated during its management of each case. The landlord’s recent risk assessment has noted the resident as high risk. Had it completed this risk assessment when the resident first reported the issue and updated it after she felt the need to move out of the property, it is possible that the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and/or request to be rehoused may have been handled differently.
The landlord has a high risk moves policy. This is designed to respond to the needs of council tenants who are at risk of serious harm. The landlord does not appear to have undertaken an assessment in line with this policy. When it is identified that there may be a risk and the resident affected is requesting a move, the policy indicates that landlord staff are expected to establish:
1. the nature and potential level of the reported risk;
2. whether anyone involved has any vulnerabilities that need to be taken into account;
3. whether there is reason to believe the substantive tenancy is unreasonable to continue to occupy due to violence or abuse; and
4. the possible options open to the affected tenant and their family.
Whether the risk to the resident is sufficient to conclude that that it is unreasonable for the resident to continue to occupy the property, is a matter for the landlord to decide alone. However, the landlord’s failure to complete this assessment and write to the resident to confirm the outcome is a significant failing in its handling of ASB.
This shortfall has meant the resident has not been moved under the policy. Alternatively, if the high risk moves policy is not applicable to the resident’s situation, the landlord has not given her clear advice on the other rehousing options available to the resident.
It is ordered that the landlord assesses the resident’s housing situation in line with its high risk moves policy. It is required to write to the resident with the outcome of its assessment of whether there is reason to believe the tenancy is unreasonable to continue to occupy due to violence or abuse. The resident has the right to appeal its decision. The landlord should also explain the possible rehousing options available to the resident.
During her complaint, the resident raised some concerns about the conduct of the initial ASB officer. These are set out earlier in the report. The landlord responded to all of these issues in its stage 2 response. While we recognise the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about this, it demonstrated it investigated her concerns, discussed the matter with the relevant staff, and wrote to her with its findings. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to investigate and respond to her concerns about staff conduct.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord initially demonstrated it was trying to keep in frequent contact with the resident. But it did not explain what the threshold was for noise disturbance that would enable it to take further action. This meant it failed to manage her expectations around what it could do. It also missed opportunities to implement the measures in its ASB policy to try to resolve the neighbour disputes that had arisen.
Further it delayed when it escalated the resident’s case, because of an administrative error which caused uncertainty for the resident. After this time, the frequency of its contact with the resident reduced significantly. And when it did speak with the resident, it is unclear if it set out its action plans to her, or carried out all of the actions it said it would in its ASB log. Although there was managerial oversight on the case every month for the majority of the case, this did not identify these missed opportunities. Most seriously, the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment or to consider its high risk moves policy.
For these reasons, we found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord’s complaint responses recognised there was some level of distress to the resident, apologised for this, and offered her £50 in recognition of this. However, it also said that it considered it did not find fault with its ASB investigation. We consider this was not reflective of the failures found during our investigation and therefore the landlord’s offer was not sufficient to address the impact on the resident.
To put things right the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures we have found. It must also pay her £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused during its investigations. It must also consider putting in place a process to ensure that ASB cases are progressed in the absence of officers.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 26 March 2024. However, when she did not receive a response, the resident spent time and trouble trying to escalate her complaint on 8 May 2024. The evidence at the time suggests the landlord was aware it had not responded to her stage 1 complaint and that the resident was confused about this when it responded to an MP enquiry for her around the same time. However, there is no evidence it addressed this with her or explained that the MP response was not a formal response through its complaint procedure.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 May 2024. This was 31 working days later. There is no evidence that the landlord explained its delay to the resident. This was inappropriate because:
1. it responded outside of the timeframes set out in the Code.
2. it failed to demonstrate it communicated any delays and set out when the resident would receive a response.
3. it failed to explain to the resident the difference between the MP response and a stage 1 response through its complaint procedure. This was a missed opportunity to manage her expectations and to progress her original complaint from March 2024 at an earlier opportunity.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 August 2024, which was 51 working days later. There is evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 occasions to explain that it was waiting for evidence to finalise its response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a revised deadline, it failed to meet the deadlines on 2 occasions. Although it wrote to her to explain this, those occasions were on the day the responses were due. There is no evidence that it updated the resident in good time when it became apparent that the revised deadlines would not be met. This was a failure to engage with her about the delays at the earliest opportunity.
However, we recognise the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response, the delays during both stages of the complaint procedure. It apologised and offered the resident £70 for this. This was appropriate redress for this issue in the circumstances.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord did not progress the resident’s initial complaint until the she intervened in May 2024 to request an escalation of her complaint. The landlord ought to have procedures in place to progress complaints without the intervention of residents. That it did not actively progress the resident’s complaint during stage 1 caused her confusion. And it failed to explain its delay during this time. While it acknowledged the delay, it did not identify in its stage 2 response that it had not managed her expectations around the complaints process and the difference between this and the MP enquiry at the earliest opportunity. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble trying to progress her complaint.
For this reason, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of its communications around the stage 1 response and her escalation request. To put things right the landlord must pay the resident an additional £50. We recommend it publishes guidance to explain the difference in its responsibilities between MP enquiries and formal complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in the report. The landlord must ensure the apology:
  1. is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  2. has due regard to our apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £650 in compensation. This is made up as follows:
  1. £600 for its shortfalls in handling ASB.
  2. £50 for its shortfalls in complaint handling.

Consider amending its ASB policy to include the requirement for case handlers to complete a risk assessment for all ASB cases. This should be regularly updated during its management of each case.
Assess the resident’s housing situation in line with its high risk moves policy. Write to the resident with the outcome of its assessment of whether there is reason to believe the tenancy is unreasonable to continue to occupy due to violence or abuse. If appropriate, the landlord should explain how the resident can appeal its decision.
Following the assessment in line with its high risk moves policy, the landlord should arrange a meeting (preferably face-to-face) to talk through the possible rehousing options available to the resident.
Consider reimbursing the resident for her financial losses between April 2024 and August 2024. The resident is required to provide further information to the landlord to allow it to assess the financial losses in line with its compensation policy.
Write to the resident to confirm if she can install a video doorbell.
1. If the landlord agrees she can, it should explain the conditions for the installation (for example, where it can be installed, what view it can record, whether audio recording should be disabled, etc.)
2. If the landlord states that she cannot, it should explain why.
Write to the resident with an update on the ASB case, including:
1. a copy of the latest risk assessment.
2. a copy of the latest action plan.
3. confirm what action it is taking against the perpetrator. The landlord should provide as much information as it can, while also adhering to data protection laws.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord consider:
1. putting in place a process to ensure that ASB cases are progressed in the absence of officers. This is to ensure continuity for residents with open cases, so they know what to expect in this event.
2. publishing guidance for residents to explain the difference in its responsibilities towards MP enquiries and formal complaints.