Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Lewisham (202301512)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301512

Lewisham Council

11 June 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 the resident’s:
    1. Request for support using a recommended noise app.
    2. Allegations of staff misconduct.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been the landlord’s secure tenant since 8 December 1980. She lives in a flat within a block. The landlord is a local council. An arms length management organisation (ALMO) was responsible for the council’s housing management functions until 1 October 2023 when the council took back responsibility. For simplicity, this report refers to both the council and the ALMO as ‘the landlord’.
  2. The landlord has investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and tenancy fraud numerous times since 2013. Part of its investigations included giving the resident access to an app, which residents can use to record noise nuisance as evidence (the Noise app).
  3. On 16 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had carried out extensive investigations over the years and found no evidence of noise nuisance. It said it would not respond to further complaints or correspondence on the matter. In 2021 and 2022 the resident raised concerns on several occasions that the landlord had tampered with her Noise app access and recordings.
  4. On 8 March 2023 the landlord invited the resident to register on the Noise app with her new email address and sent her a link to an instruction video. It said it would review any recordings she made but would only contact her if they contained evidence of excessive noise. The resident contacted the landlord on 14, 20, and 29 March 2023 asking for help logging into and using the app. She also said there was a recording on there that she had not made herself. The landlord did not respond.
  5. On 3 April 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had not supported her to use the Noise app. She also alleged that her housing officer had tampered with her Noise app recordings by changing the times that they had been logged. She said that the housing officer had a personal relationship with the alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance which presented a conflict of interest.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 April 2023 to say it had spoken to the staff member who denied the allegations. It had also accessed the Noise app and found no evidence of tampering. It asked the resident to provide any supporting evidence by 14 April 2023. If it did not receive anything it would make no further contact on the matter.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord twice more asking for support using the Noise app. The landlord visited the resident on 1 June 2023 to provide support. The resident contacted the landlord again asking for further assistance. It told her that it had helped to set the app up but was unable to help her with everyday use. The resident continued to raise concerns about using the app and alleged tampering and on 24 July 2023 she did so via the landlord’s online complaints form.
  8. On 1 August 2023 the landlord responded. It said:
    1. It had decided not to deal with the matter as a complaint as there was no service failure.
    2. It had investigated her allegations and not found any evidence of tampering with the Noise app. The resident had not provided any evidence to support her allegations so it would not investigate further. However, to put the resident at ease, the landlord had removed the housing officer from the Noise app case.
    3. It would continue monitoring Noise app recordings until the end of the month and would close the case if there was no evidence of excessive noise.
  9. On 6 September 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint formally by 13 September 2023. It wrote to the resident on 14 September 2023 reiterating its position.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. As a resolution she wants the landlord to act on the Noise app recordings she has submitted as evidence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has made several complaints about the landlord’s handling of her noise nuisance reports. The Ombudsman considered the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance reports in case 201810942 and its handling of noise nuisance and tenancy fraud reports in cases 201609553 and 202405402. This investigation will not consider any matters on which we have already made a determination. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme which says we may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. The complaints we have considered in this report have been about the resident’s use of the Noise app and allegations of staff misconduct. As such, we have not considered the reports of noise nuisance and tenancy fraud as a whole.
  3. Additionally, while the resident has reported that her experience dates back to 2013, this investigation does not intend to assess events going back that far. As events become historical, it becomes more difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate and arrive at evidence-based conclusions. We expect residents to raise complaints with their landlord and us within a reasonable timeframe so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. This would normally be within 12 months of the issues arising.
  4. Given the passage of time, we have decided it would be most appropriate to consider events up to 12 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While we may refer to earlier matters in this report, this is only for context.

Request for support using a recommended noise app

  1. We have not considered whether the landlord’s January 2019 letter, which told the resident it would not respond to further complaints or correspondence about the alleged noise nuisance, was appropriate. This is because it occurred prior to the period we are investigating. However, we have recommended that the landlord ensure any current or future restrictions on contact are managed in line with the relevant policy.
  2. While the landlord had made its position on the noise nuisance allegations clear, the fact it had recently invited the resident to create a new Noise app account meant she would have had a reasonable expectation that it would respond to follow up queries she had on that matter. The landlord should have responded to her queries within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. It is positive that the landlord visited the resident to support her with the app, although by the time it did, it was 2.5 months since she had first asked for help. The landlord was reasonable when it advised the resident it was unable to help her with everyday use of the app as landlords have limited resources. It had provided the resident with a link to an instruction video in March 2023 although in one of her emails, the resident said the video was not relevant to the Noise app. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this and either provide the correct link or confirm that the one already given was correct.
  4. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for assistance was reasonable, however it should have responded much quicker. The history of noise nuisance allegations and the landlord’s position on responding to further complaints meant that it failed to recognise that the requests were separate issues which required a timely response.
  5. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure. This is a lower level of maladministration. We consider it appropriate in this case as while there was failure on the landlord’s part, it did not affect the overall impact for the resident as she was able to submit numerous recordings.
  6. The service failure did, however, cause distress and inconvenience and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to acknowledge this.

Allegations of staff misconduct

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s allegations within 3 working days, which was appropriate. The response was reasonable. It explained what investigation the landlord had carried out and invited the resident to provide any evidence to support her allegations.
  2. The landlord addressed the issue in its email which refused to log the complaint on 1 August 2023 and then again on 13 September 2023. The content was reasonable. The landlord set out the steps it had taken to investigate the allegations again. It also took the additional step of removing the housing officer from the Noise app case to reassure the resident, which was appropriate.
  3. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegations of staff misconduct was reasonable. It took appropriate steps to investigate the issue and responded promptly, which showed it was taking the allegations seriously. For this reason, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) say that complaint handlers must:
    1. Deal with complaints on their merits.
    2. Act independently and have an open mind.
    3. Take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
    4. Consider all information and evidence carefully.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it may refuse to log complaints if residents act unreasonably or make repeated complaints about the same issue which have already been considered at each stage of the complaints procedure. It says the landlord will always let the resident know when this is the case, give reasons why, and remind them of their right to take that decision to the Ombudsman.
  3. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in 2019. As part of our determination, we recommended that the person reviewing any further complaints about the issue was different to the person managing the noise nuisance case.
  4. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
  5. The resident asked to make a formal complaint on 3 April 2023, however, the landlord did not consider her email as a complaint. Although it replied and addressed the allegations of staff misconduct, it neither acknowledged the complaint nor explained that it was refusing to do so. This was inappropriate. While the landlord had previously told the resident it would not respond to further correspondence about noise nuisance or tenancy fraud, this complaint related to staff misconduct and a lack of support using the Noise app, which were separate matters.
  6. The resident asked to make a formal complaint again by email on 11 April 2023 and via the landlord’s online complaint form on 24 July 2023. In between those dates she raised her concerns several more times by email. The landlord did not consider her communications to be a complaint until she raised them using the complaints form. This was inappropriate. The landlord must ensure it considers all expressions of dissatisfaction that meet the definition of a complaint accordingly, not only those made via its complaints form.
  7. The Code states that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord responded on 1 August 2023 which was more than 3 months past the appropriate timeframe.
  8. The landlord’s refusal to log the complaint was inappropriate. As mentioned already, the complaints were about issues separate to the noise nuisance and tenancy fraud allegations and as such the landlord should have responded under the complaints procedure.
  9. Additionally, when refusing to log a complaint the landlord failed to remind the resident of her right to bring that decision to the Ombudsman, as required by the Code and the landlord’s own policy. The staff member who sent the refusal email was one who had been heavily involved in the previous noise nuisance investigations. It would have been more appropriate for a staff member who had not previously been involved to review the complaint, to mitigate any conflict of interest and ensure the complaint was considered on its merits, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s 2019 recommendation.
  10. In summary, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the Code and its own policy when handling the resident’s complaint. It failed to log the complaint and as such deprived the resident of stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The failure to consider her initial complaint as such also meant the final response was 3 months overdue, which delayed the resident in being able to bring her complaint to this service.
  11. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure. We consider this to be appropriate as the failures identified did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, as the landlord did address the issues complained about, albeit outside the complaints procedure. To acknowledge the failure to follow the proper process, the delay responding, and any distress and inconvenience this caused, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support using a recommended noise app.
    2. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations of staff misconduct.
    3. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £50 in relation to the delay responding to her request for assistance using the Noise app.
      2. £50 in relation to the complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its current position on communicating with the resident and ensure any actions taken are in line with the managing unreasonable complainant behaviour policy. This includes the requirement that the resident be informed of their right to appeal any actions taken under the policy.