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

London Borough of Hackney (202429110)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429110

London Borough of Hackney

17 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her son.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 August 2024. She said she had been experiencing ASB from her neighbour for over a year. She said she had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions regarding the issues. The resident said it had affected the wellbeing of her 10 year old son and their quality of life had severely deteriorated. She said they dreaded going home and that they experienced anxiety, fear, and sleepless nights due to the neighbour’s behaviour.
  3. The resident said the neighbour screamed and shouted at all hours of the day. She said the neighbour would also slam their doors, and bang objects on the shared walls. She said other residents had heard the noise and the police had been contacted multiple times. The resident attached her records of the incidents and the police reference. She said the landlord was not doing anything to resolve the issue and she wanted to feel safe in her home. She said if the landlord could not remove her neighbour, then it should move her instead.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. It confirmed there had been a number of ASB reports from the resident and other neighbouring residents regarding the neighbour. It outlined the cases which it had opened following the resident’s complaints. It said there were complexities surrounding the situation and it was working with the managing agent of the property, as well as other stakeholders. It said it was exploring legal options against the neighbour and that the situation was ongoing. The landlord said it could not share any further information at that time but would update her with any developments. It said it empathised with the resident and was working to bring the matter to a conclusion.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 September 2024. She said she had not seen evidence of the steps taken to resolve the issue. She said her life was being destroyed and the neighbour’s behaviour was impacting her mental and physical wellbeing. She said it was not simply a case of not having a “right to quiet enjoyment,” she said she could not sleep, and it was affecting her child. The resident said the landlord had ample time to resolve the issue. She referred to the landlord passing her case around different teams. She said it was not her burden to bear and the landlord should re–evaluate her banding on the housing register.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 October 2024. It said the following:
    1. The resident had evidenced that she had been reporting the issue since 15 October 2023 and it did not open an ASB case. It said it opened a case following the resident’s report on 13 February 2024, it said it completed a site visit on the same day. It closed the case on 21 February 2024 following the resident’s reports that all was calm. The resident reported ASB again on 23 April 2024 and it opened a further case. It said the ASB officer was unable to speak with the neighbour. The landlord said it had begun legal proceedings on 14 May 2024 and the resident had continued to report the issue.
    2. The landlord said it attended promptly after her reports of ASB in February 2024 and attempted to resolve the issue. However, from 23 May 2024, it did not record anything on her case, despite her making reports. It said this demonstrated that its management of the reports was poor and not in line with its policy. It said it would open a new ASB case and ensure it managed it in line with its policies.
    3. It said it empathised with the resident and the impact on her household. It said action to resolve the issue was ongoing and was influenced by the complexities concerning the neighbour. It said it would update the resident when it was able to share any further information. It offered £810 in compensation. £600 was to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. £200 was in recognition of her time and trouble. £10 was for the failure to respond to her complaint at stage 1 on time.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the situation was ongoing and she had not had a full night’s sleep since the neighbour moved in. She said her son would wake up multiple times in the night crying and in distress. She said he had fallen asleep at school. The resident said they were both suffering from severe anxiety and she had to seek medical help. She said the only way she could see an end to the issue was for the landlord to move her as she could not take it anymore.

Post-internal complaints process

  1. The resident said the neighbour moved out of their property around May 2025. The resident said she is unaware of the reasons why the neighbour moved out but the noise has since stopped. The landlord has confirmed that the neighbour was no longer residing at the property as of March 2025.
  2. The resident is now seeking an apology from the landlord. She said she could have lost her mind and she wants to make sure no-one else will have the same experience as her. She said the landlord did not provide her with a clear action plan and she felt the landlord should not have placed the neighbour in the building to begin with. The resident felt the compensation offered was not proportionate to what she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her own and her son’s health and wellbeing. This Service 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. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The resident has made reference to her right to quiet enjoyment. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the right to a private and family life, home and correspondence. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached any of the Articles in the 1998 Act. However, we will consider whether it gave proper consideration to the resident’s rights when responding to her reports.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise from her neighbour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it believes everyone has the right to enjoy their home and live without interference. It says it will investigate all reports of ASB professionally and objectively. It confirms that it will contact other residents, the alleged perpetrator, and other agencies. It says some actions may be taken without a resident’s knowledge, such as sharing information with the police or safeguarding referrals.
  2. The policy says it will make it as easy as possible to report incidents of ASB. It will put an officer in charge of each case, agree an action plan with the resident, and review cases at least once a month. It says it will provide extra support if needed.
  3. In this case it was not disputed by the landlord that its handling of the resident’s reports were poor and not in line with its policy. It said it did not open an ASB case despite the resident’s reporting of the issues from 15 October 2023 to January 2024. It opened a case in February 2024 and carried out some actions prior to closing it in the same month. It opened a further case in April 2024 but failed to make notes on the system and respond to all the reports provided. The landlord apologised for those failures and offered compensation.
  4. Where there are acknowledged failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
  5. While the landlord acknowledged its failures regarding not following its policy and committed to do so following the stage 2 response, it did not show how it learnt from its outcomes. It did not explain why multiple staff members did not respond to the resident’s initial reports or why it did not have any record of the reports or the action taken from 23 May 2024 onwards. In not providing this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord took sufficient steps to prevent the failures happening again in future. The impact of its poor information handling likely caused significant time, trouble, and distress to the resident. It was not appropriate that the landlord could not provide reassurances to the resident and this Service that it had put right its failures.
  6. We have had to rely mostly on information from the resident to ascertain a version of events, which is not appropriate. In its stage 2 response the landlord outlined some action it had taken. It referred to a site visit and an attempt to speak with the neighbour. There is no evidence to support whether it eventually did speak to the neighbour and what the outcome of any visits were. It said it had begun legal proceedings but there were no records to show how it collated enough evidence to do so.
  7. Accurate and complete records can help a landlord review its handling of an ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings. The absence of full records, and therefore evidence, presents a significant risk that such processes cannot be fully utilised, and consequently residents are disadvantaged. In the absence of detailed file notes from the landlord, this Service is unable to confirm whether the landlord reasonably investigated the reports and took proportionate action.
  8. The landlord referred to there being a number of complexities surrounding the situation, it said it was liaising with the managing agent of the property as well as other stakeholders. It is understandable that the landlord could not share all the action it had taken regarding the neighbour, this would be in line with data protection regulations and its policy. Although, an action plan, along with regular updates to the resident on the information it could share would have helped to manage her expectations. This would have reassured the resident as far as it could that it was taking her reports seriously.
  9. As stated, it was not clear who the other stakeholders were in this case. While this could be for confidentiality reasons, the resident had informed the landlord that she had called the police. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to see evidence of the landlord liaising with the police following the report or discussing it with the resident further. Such information can be vital for aiding a landlord’s own investigations and for considering the proportionate steps it can take for both the resident and the alleged perpetrator. It is not appropriate that landlord has not evidenced it carrying out such actions.
  10. The landlord has provided information to the Ombudsman following the stage 2 complaint which shows consideration to the sensitivities surrounding the neighbour and the action taken. However, it has not provided any information which showed consideration to the ongoing adverse impact on the resident, her son, and any possible welfare needs. Its stage 2 response said it empathised with the resident and that it had been distressing for her and her son. It was not appropriate that it did not consider its own obligations in relation to the reported risks.
  11. The resident repeatedly brought to the landlord’s attention the impact on both her own and her son’s mental health and wellbeing. While not referred to within the landlord’s policy, risk assessments can be a fundamental element in responding to ASB and it is good practice for landlords to complete them. In this case, a risk assessment would have helped the landlord to understand the risks posed to the resident’s household and ensure that appropriate support measures were in place, where necessary.
  12. In her communication to the landlord and in her formal complaint, the resident stated that she would like the landlord to move her as a result of the ongoing issue and impact on her own and her son’s wellbeing. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it considered her request or even responded to it. This was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed its own processes in considering whether the resident met the threshold for a transfer. If she did not, then it should have provided the reasons why, along with the options available to her.
  13. By failing to acknowledge the resident’s request for a move and impact on the household, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord did not pay sufficient consideration to the resident’s right to a private and family life and home. It appeared dismissive and failed to show that it was taking the resident’s lived experience seriously. This was likely frustrating for the resident and caused time and trouble in her having to keep contacting the landlord.
  14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would open a new ASB case for the resident. It said it would ensure it was managed in line with its policies and provide regular updates to the resident. It is positive to hear from the resident that her new ASB officer was in regular contact, even though there was little progress they could share.
  15. The £810 offered was reasonable for the failings it identified. It was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for cases which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right was substantial. However, in line with its compensation guidance for failure to acknowledge failings and put them right, the landlord should pay further compensation to the resident for the following:
    1. £200 to put right the detriment caused to the resident and her son by not fully responding to the reported impact on them. This was both during her reports and in its complaint responses.
    2. £100 to put right the detriment caused to the resident by not acknowledging or responding to her requests to move. 
  16. Overall, the landlord did take steps to put right its failures. This was namely its acknowledgement of some of the failings, that it took some action against the neighbour, and the £810 it offered in compensation. However, there were significant failings which it did not acknowledge and it did not evidence its learning from the outcomes. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise from her neighbour.

Special investigation

  1. 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.
  2. The special investigation also identified the landlord’s limited understanding of knowledge and information management. It emphasised the importance of a centralised system. And it considered how the lack of effective record keeping would lead to a disconnection across business areas and left operations vulnerable to human error.
  3. 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. As such, no orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s internal processes. The landlord should reflect on the failures in this case and what learning it can take to help inform any future improvements.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise from her neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified this report. This should include the failure to consider any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household and what action it could take, the lack of response to her request to move, and its failure to show how it had learnt from its mistakes. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,110 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. The £810 it offered in its stage 2 response.
    2. £300 for the additional failures identified in this report.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reflect on the failings in this case and what learning it can take to help inform any future improvements.