London Borough of Hackney (202229487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229487

London Borough of Hackney

31 July 2024

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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance, threats and intimidation from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the communal area.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord is a local authority. He occupies a one bed first floor flat in a block. His tenancy started in 2007. The resident has said that he has mental health conditions which include depression and anxiety.
The resident has reported noise from his neighbours in the block over a period of 13 years, although most of his reports concern one neighbour. The landlord has opened 10 ASB cases for the resident over this period.
The resident had referred an earlier complaint to this Service which we investigated and determined under case number 201803850 in April 2019. The Ombudsman destroyed the case files under this case number in June 2022 in line with our data retention policy. The resident has referred to this case in his correspondence with this Service. We are unable to refer to matters relating to this earlier case as we no longer hold these files.
In April 2022, the resident reported new incidents of ASB from a neighbour to the landlord. He said that he had recorded the noise nuisance over the weekend. He said that the neighbour and his associates had observed him recording the noise and that they had threatened him with violence. He had reported this to the police on the Monday, but he was unable to provide a crime reference number.
In response the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 25 April 2022 to let him know that it was investigating his report and that the officer would be in contact with him. The letter did not include a timescale in which it would respond to him.
The records show that there was a lack of agreement between the landlord’s teams about who would be allocated the case for investigation. After some discussion, it decided that it would add the resident’s report to another case held by its specialist ASB housing team, and that it would close the resident’s case if he was agreeable to this. The landlord has not provided further records to show what the outcome was, however in its complaint response it said that it closed the case in July 2022, after the noise nuisance had ceased.
On 6 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to report noise nuisance from the same neighbour. On 12 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that it was investigating his report. It said that the investigating officer would be in contact with him. There was a further discussion between the landlord’s teams about who should be investigating the report.
On 31 January 2023, the resident delivered a letter to the landlord’s offices. It said:
1. There was a pool of water that he described as a “moat” surrounding the building. He raised concerns that this would cause damp and the water was stagnant and had a foul odour.
2. He was unhappy that the landlord had not investigated his ASB report.
3. He said that he had mental health needs and he asked that the landlord correspond with him by post only going forward.
The landlord raised an internal request that day for a surveyor to attend and visit the block, to carry out remedial works. It did not open an ASB case, and it referred the case to another team for investigation.
On 23 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord via this Service. We asked the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response by the 10 March 2023. The landlord overlooked this request and did not act upon it until 23 March 2023 when it responded to this Service and apologised for the administrative error. It said that it would issue a stage 1 complaint response as soon as possible.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord called the resident to discuss the issues he had raised, but during the conversation the resident expressed his frustrations with the service and ended the call. In April 2023, the resident presented at the landlord’s main offices to object that it had not logged or responded to his complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 April 2023 to let him know that it was investigating his complaint at stage 1 and that he should expect a response within 10 days.
In April and May 2023, there was further discussion between the landlord’s teams about who should be investigating the resident’s ASB reports. They agreed that the specialist housing ASB team should be investigating the reports, given the long history of their involvement with the resident.
The case was allocated to the ASB team on 12 May 2023, and a letter sent to the resident dated that day, to inform him that a case had been opened. On 15 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to make an appointment to interview him about his reports. The resident said that he had made reports in November 2022 and had received no response. He said he would only accept contact in writing.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It outlined the action that it had taken in relation to the resident’s earlier reports. It said that it had opened a new ASB case in January 2023, but it had taken no further action for which it offered the resident an apology. It said that it had now opened a new case which it was investigating.
The landlord’s further attempts to contact the resident for an update in May 2023 were unsuccessful. The landlord was also unable to contact the neighbour to discuss the reports of ASB.
On 2 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask that it escalate his complaint to stage 2. He was unhappy that his reports had not been addressed and that there were ongoing problems with water pooling at the base of the block.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 12 June 2023. It said that, prior to escalating his complaint to stage 2, it would like to arrange a resolution meeting with him to clarify all the matters to fully address the points he had made. It asked that the resident contact it to confirm if he was willing to meet.
The landlord wrote to the resident for an update on the ASB on 19 June and 14 July 2023, but the resident did not respond. The landlord made further attempts to contact the neighbour. On 1 August 2023, it sent the resident a letter to advise that if it did not hear from him within the next 7 days, it would close his ASB case. As the resident did not respond, it closed the case on 21 August 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 September 2023. It said that:
1. It had upheld the resident’s complaint about the poor level of service he had received in relation to his ASB reports.
2. A senior officer would be reviewing the resident’s case with relevant managers and using it to inform the review of the ASB service. It offered the opportunity for the resident to meet with the senior officer to discuss the case and to agree an action plan.
3. It apologised that his report of water pooling around the exterior of the building had not been actioned. It would inspect the estate to find any issues and report them to the repairs service.
4. It awarded compensation of £1600 with £1000 for his time, trouble, and distress and £600 for its service failures.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint, and he asked this Service to investigate it.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles required landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

While the resident has informed this Service that he has made reports of noise nuisance to the landlord over a period of 10 years, this investigation will focus on events from April 2022 onwards. This is because the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42c states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
Furthermore, 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 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 needed.   
The resident has also described the impact of the ASB on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute or seek to diminish the impact that the resident says the ASB has had on his health. The Ombudsman is, however, not able to determine matters such as causation, liability or damages as these are matters best resolved through the courts. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman can, however, consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s ASB reports.

It is clear from the resident’s detailed correspondence with the Ombudsman that he has extensive concerns about the landlord’s management of ASB reports over a significant period. The background section above explains the Ombudsman’s remit, with any formal Ombudsman investigation limited to those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints process. As such, the assessment of this case will focus solely on the three ASB cases opened in April 2022, January 2023 and May 2023.
In cases concerning ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to find whether the ASB occurred, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB, whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures, and whether it acted reasonably in all of the circumstances. This means there can be cases where ASB is ongoing but also where the landlord has done all that it can based on the information available to it.
This investigation has been impacted by the landlord’s record keeping. There are significant gaps in evidence which has not enabled this Service to obtain a full understanding of the history and handling of this ASB case. Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and rely on in its management of the ASB case. Accurate and complete records also help a landlord review its handling of the 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.
The records show that there was a disconnect between teams as to who should be conducting the investigation for the case. A timely acknowledgement that the report would be investigated was sent out to the resident on each occasion he reported ASB. However, on each occasion there was a request that it escalate the case so that it would be dealt with by the specialist ASB team given the resident’s history of reporting noise nuisance in the block. This was either not actioned promptly, or at all.
In relation to the resident’s reports of April 2022, the landlord records show that it had decided to add the resident’s complaint to an existing complaint by another resident. Because of the gaps in the information provided, it is unclear whether the resident’s permission was sought or obtained in relation to this. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the police given that the resident reports that a neighbour had threatened and intimidated him. The records do not support that the landlord prepared an action plan, or that it told the resident that it had closed his case without investigating his reports of threatening behaviour. Further there were no records to evidence that the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator to about the allegations. Overall, the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s report was inadequate and did not follow the steps in its ASB policy and procedure.
When the resident made a further report in January 2023, the landlord told him that it would investigate this, but it did not do so. There was a further disagreement between teams as to who would investigate the complaint. When this reached an impasse, neither team picked it up and the case was not investigated. This was a failing. As no section took ownership of the case, the resident was left without a service. The landlord lacked robust procedures to ensure that when cases were logged, they were allocated and monitored to conclusion. Where a request is submitted for a case to be escalated, this should be considered without delay.
A new case was opened in May 2023 and allocated to the specialist ASB team. The landlord took proper steps in trying to contact the resident for an update. It wrote to him to arrange a home visit with him. It made attempts to contact the alleged perpetrator. It wrote to the resident on 3 occasions asking for information and on the third occasion giving notice that it would close his case. These steps were in line with its ASB policy. It did try to contact the resident by phone when he had expressly said that he would only accept contact by post, which was unsatisfactory.
The resident’s frustrations about having to re-commence the ASB investigation process on each occasion were understandable. However, ASB can take many forms and will often involve cases where the reported behaviour is sporadic; in such cases, a landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a reasonable and proportionate way.
The reporting party will often feel that the landlord has not taken their reports seriously or that the landlord has taken too long to progress the case. However, it is important to note that the landlord is not responsible for any alleged unacceptable behaviour; instead, its role is to ensure that it responds to any reports it receives by following its policies and procedures and legal obligations. This will involve progressing through its ASB procedure, gathering and reviewing evidence and then taking actions proportionate to its understanding of such evidence.
Although the resident, in his correspondence, expressed that he did not feel that it was his responsibility to provide the landlord with evidence, in the absence of evidence the landlord would not be able decide how best to address the alleged ASB. The resident had said that he wanted his neighbour to move, however this would be a decision for the courts and the absence of evidence would prohibit this.
Nonetheless, there were other steps the landlord could have taken to investigate the noise reports. It could have spoken with other tenants in the block and issued letters asking its tenants to be mindful of noise and encouraging any witnesses of ASB to report the issues. On this occasion, the records do not show that the landlord visited other tenants’ homes. It did not signpost the resident to its noise and pollution team who would be able to investigate if statutory noise nuisance had likely occurred, which if proven would allow the landlord to take more robust tenancy action against a perpetrator. These actions would have been in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which says that “we will investigate all reports of ASB professionally and objectively…before we make a decision, we will get proof by contacting other residents, the person who is said to have behaved in an antisocial way and other agencies.”
Overall, up until May 2023, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was inadequate and this had a detrimental impact on the resident. He was caused avoidable distress because of the landlord’s failure to follow its policies and procedures. He spent time and trouble sending in repeat requests and chasing replies over a ten-month period. As a result, this affected his confidence in the landlord’s service, and this was compounded by his deteriorating mental health.
In its complaint response, the landlord conceded that its service delivery was poor. It apologised for this, and it said that its senior officer would be available to meet with the resident to go through his concerns and to prepare an action plan to investigate the ASB reported. It offered the resident compensation for his time, trouble and distress and for its service failures. It also said that, to learn from the resident’s case, it would incorporate his case in its review of the ASB service and arrange a meeting with team managers to ensure that it picked up cases promptly and identified other areas of learning.
In its response, the landlord had shown that it accepted its service failings, it looked to put things right by arranging a meeting between the resident and a senior officer so that his case could be reviewed. It offered assurances that it would learn from outcomes by incorporating the resident’s case in its review of its ASB services.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was within the range of financial remedies in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for a service failure that had a significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the redress offered by the landlord is reasonable and satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal area

The resident has said that the water pooling outside the block had been a problem for over a year. From the records provided, there is no evidence to show that the resident had reported this issue to the landlord prior to January 2023. The Ombudsman is an impartial service, and we can only make findings on the available documentary evidence. It would therefore have been open to the landlord to treat this as a service request rather than a complaint.
While there is evidence that the landlord reported this issue to its repairs service promptly, it was not actioned or followed up. This was a failing. Overall, it took 8 months for the landlord to respond to this and to raise works. The landlord’s repairs guide says it will attend to urgent or normal repairs in either 5 or 21 days. The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to confirm the date it had completed the works, but as of the date of this report, a response has not been forthcoming.
The landlord’s repairs guide says that residents should report repairs in communal areas promptly, as they may present a health and safety risk. The resident was, again, caused inconvenience in having to follow this up with the landlord. The delay in addressing this, or following this up with the repairs team, was a service failing. The landlord agreed to raise this with the appropriate team and offered an amount in compensation for this, which was commensurate with the Ombudsman’s remedies guide for a failure of this nature. However, the landlord did not outline what it would do going forward to ensure that further oversights of this nature were not repeated. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident has referred to earlier complaints he had made to the landlord that it had not responded to. While the Ombudsman does not question the resident’s statement, neither the landlord nor the resident have provided copies of these complaints. The Ombudsman is an impartial service, and we rely on evidence to investigate a complaint. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence, we are unable to investigate an aspect of a complaint or make a finding.
The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. It therefore should have treated the resident’s letter of 31 January as a complaint. This did not happen, which was a failing.
After this Service intervened in February 2023 and requested a response by the 10 March 2023, it did not pick this up until 23 March 2023. The landlord gave assurances that it would respond promptly, however a response was not issued until 16 May 2023, almost 6 weeks later. The landlord’s complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to in 10 working days. The Code also says that “Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.”
The delay was excessive and unreasonable. The failure of the landlord to register the resident’s complaint requests shows that its processes are insufficiently robust to record complaints appropriately. This affects its residents and deprives them of a service.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 48 days outside of its published response timescales, which was unsatisfactory. The landlord did not find its complaints handling as a service failing in its response and it did not offer the resident redress in acknowledgement of the delays.
The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord’s poor service delivery was apparent when it failed to respond promptly to his complaint, even after the intervention of this Service. Complaints are opportunities to find gaps in service delivery and to look for ways to progress real change. The resident was caused time and trouble in chasing this up and the landlord did not acknowledge the impact on him of this, particularly given his vulnerabilities.
It would have been reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to have offered the resident redress for its complaint handling failings. Following the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, taking into consideration the added impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities and mental health condition, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a further £300 in compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the matter satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £300 for his distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the amount of £1600 it had offered as compensation in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord should contact the resident to enquire whether the noise nuisance is ongoing and, if so, to consider whether a new ASB case should be opened. Should the resident remain dissatisfied, the landlord should discuss with the resident the option of making a referral for an anti-social behaviour case review.
The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of its ASB service review.