London Borough of Waltham Forest (202440600)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322470

London Borough of Waltham Forest

13 August 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of items left in communal areas.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local council. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a block of 6 flats.
The resident has vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic. This means he requires communications to be ‘autism friendly.’ The resident has explained that this means no complex written communications. He has also asked the landlord and us to ring him before sending him things in writing.
On 8 January 2025 we approached the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to contact him. The resident had called us prior to making a complaint to the landlord. He said it concerned ASB in December 2024 caused by a neighbour. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. And also with items left in communal areas, which he says caused trip hazards and obstructed a fire escape.
On 13 February 2025 the landlord informed us it had received and acknowledged the resident’s complaint dated 10 February 2025.
On 19 February 2025 the landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It had called him on 17 December 2024 to discuss ASB as we had ordered it to, following a previous complaint investigation.
2. During the call the resident made no reports of ASB.
3. It had no open ASB cases to investigate and remained satisfied his complaint was an extension of historical reports to which it had already responded.
4. It was satisfied with its routine inspections to ensure communal areas and escape routes were clear.
5. Its caretakers were attending twice weekly to remove the resident’s own rubbish which he was disposing of in communal walkways.
6. It would arrange for an officer to call the resident regarding his reports of ASB.
7. It would send a block letter reminding all resident’s of their obligations to dispose of waste and stored items as per the terms of their tenancy.
In contact with us, the landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 20 February 2025. The resident disputed the landlord’s claims he had not reported ASB. And he also remained unhappy with its steps to clear communal areas. The resident said he found it difficult to talk to the landlord to report issues as it did not take his calls or listen to him.
On 27 February 2025 the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It remained satisfied with its stage 1 investigation and response. It summarised its actions regarding the resident’s concerns. And it also reminded him he was contributing to his reports of communal obstructions by leaving his rubbish in communal areas. The landlord reminded the resident of various methods of contact to report ASB or raise service requests.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. While he could not remember when he reported the alleged ASB, the resident says he gave diary sheets to his tenancy officer. The resident would like the landlord to address the ASB and stop other residents leaving items in communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with us the resident said the landlord’s actions affected his mental health.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident also said the landlord had treated him and other residents differently due to their disabilities. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. This matter therefore falls outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation. Or he can speak to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
In April 2025 the resident said a contractor working on behalf of a neighbour assaulted him. The alleged incident did not form part of the resident’s original complaint. And occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 final response in February 2025. While it was appropriate for the resident to report this new matter to the police and the landlord, it will not form part of this investigation. The landlord must first have opportunity to investigate the resident’s allegations and any following complaint.
In contact with us the resident sought for us to consider ASB over a period of 3 years. Evidence supplied by the resident included video recording doorbell footage, or recordings taken by the resident. These show different residents and date from 2021.
It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to us when they are not satisfied with the landlord’s response. While the resident may not agree with the landlord’s previous responses, it has already addressed these matters. Furthermore, the resident did not raise them with us within a reasonable time, normally within 12 months.
Therefore, as discussed with the resident on 6 August 2025, it is appropriate for us to set out the dates of this investigation. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2025, through to its final response on 27 February 2025. While it is reasonable for us to consider 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, any reference to older events will be to provide context only.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

Our role is not to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrator amounted to ASB. We will consider if the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy and procedures, and in a manner that was reasonable overall.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB. In which, it states that it is conduct which:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s stage 1 response reminded the resident of its telephone call with him on 17 December 2024. During which it recorded his dissatisfaction regarding its handling of previous ASB reports. And his difficulties interacting with the landlord. We have seen no evidence the resident reported any new ASB incidents at the time.
We note within the resident’s correspondence he says he provided diary sheets to the landlord. While we would encourage a resident to record all ASB events, neither party has provided evidence of diary sheets for alleged incidents in December 2024. Therefore, it has affected our ability to effectively assess the resident’s allegations.
The resident says on or around 30 December 2024, a neighbour aggressively knocked on his front door at night. He says they were in their night clothes and they claimed his radio was too loud. The resident states he has no radio and called the emergency services due to welfare concerns. He considered this incident ASB. In contact with us on 8 January 2025, the resident confirmed he had not yet reported this to the landlord.
Any disturbance at night would understandably cause distress. However, this welfare concern and alleged incident was beyond the landlord’s control. As this was out of hours, it was appropriate for the resident to report the matter to the emergency services. Furthermore, it is reasonable the landlord would be unable to offer any follow up assistance if the resident did not report it.
Following our intervention, the landlord’s complaint process acknowledged the resident’s welfare comments regarding his neighbour. It also informed him it could not investigate the matter on his behalf. Given the resident had no consent to discuss the neighbour’s circumstances, the landlord’s response was appropriate. It demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to manage matters confidentially while adhering to UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The resident says he reported the ASB instances to us in January 2025 because the landlord did not take his calls in December 2024. However, evidence shows the resident successfully raised a service request for a toilet repair. It is therefore unclear to us why the resident feels he had been unable to talk to the landlord about ASB via its call centre.
The landlord remained satisfied it had received no new ASB reports from the resident before or after its call with him on 17 December 2024. However, it arranged to contact him to discuss matters. This was a reasonable suggestion and demonstrated the landlord’s steps to act on the resident’s new concerns. We are satisfied the landlord has provided evidence of its efforts to complete this.
The landlord’s complaint responses also reminded the resident of its telephone numbers and emails. This demonstrated its efforts to respond to the resident’s comments that he had difficulty communicating with it.
Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. In this instance, we have identified no evidence the landlord failed to investigate a matter which met the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. However, given the resident states ASB remains ongoing, we recommend the landlord contacts him.

Handling of the resident’s reports of items left in communal areas

The landlord’s tenancy conditions state resident’s must:
1. Place household rubbish in a dustbin, refuse chute, or any other designated area.
2. Keep all shared areas, including all entrances, stairways, corridors, and landings free from obstructions.
3. Not leave any personal belongings or rubbish in any shared areas.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states communal areas in a building do not belong to any individual. Therefore, in general, residents do not have the right to store or leave anything in these areas, even directly outside their front doors. This includes doormats or rugs.
The landlord has a vulnerable person’s policy. In which, it states it will work with external partners to support a vulnerable resident who is breaching the terms and conditions of their tenancy.
The evidence shows the landlord completed regular communal inspections throughout 2024 at the resident’s block. It photographed identified hazards such as personal possessions and rubbish left by residents in communal areas. This demonstrates the landlord routinely monitored the escape routes in the block.
The landlord’s policy and procedures regarding communal areas states its process when it identifies items. The landlord will:
1. Record the presence of the items.
2. Knock on doors to identify the owner.
3. Request the individual removes the items.
4. Instantly remove any item considered to be a fire risk or another health or safety concern.
Obstructions in communal areas would understandably cause upset. They also present health and safety risks to residents and visitors to the block. As such, the landlord has demonstrated following its process to monitor and remind residents of their tenancy obligations. This includes sending warning letters prior to the removal of items.
While the resident seeks for the landlord to prevent any future occurrence and the permanent removal of all items, the landlord must first identify the owner or perpetrator. In doing so, its actions are confidential to the individual households. As the resident does not have consent from other households, it is appropriate the landlord does not discuss specific actions taken against other residents. This is appropriate and in line with its obligations under GDPR.
The landlord’s inspection photographs throughout 2024 shows the presence of doormats outside properties in the resident’s block. We have seen no evidence the landlord has amended any documents which permits the use of doormats in communal areas. Therefore, this demonstrates the landlord may not have successfully enforced its own policy.
The landlord’s complaint responses reminded the resident he was also leaving rubbish in communal areas, which it cleared twice a week. Therefore, his actions contributed to his reports of communal obstructions. Our report 2020021300, determined on 4 May 2021, demonstrates the landlord previously engaged support for the resident and the management of his rubbish.
Given the resident’s disclosure of mental health vulnerabilities, it is reasonable the landlord has not taken tenancy enforcement action on the resident. Its temporary solution to remove the rubbish itself, demonstrates its commitment to clearing communal areas. And it has also shown it has given due regard to the resident’s circumstances under the Equality Act 2010. This was consistent with its vulnerable persons policy.
While we acknowledge there were failings by the landlord’s handling of this matter, the evidence shows the resident contributed to the reported obstructions. We have therefore not ordered an apology or compensation.
The landlord has to balance its obligation to consider household vulnerabilities with the safety and security of the whole block. While we appreciate this would be challenging, it is essential the landlord enforces its policy for clear communal areas. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to address this matter to ensure the safety and security of all residents.
Based on our findings we find service failure. The landlord has not demonstrated effective enforcement of its own policy. Or evidenced where it has allowed items to remain.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. We are satisfied the landlord’s complaint policy complies with the Code.
On 8 January 2025 we asked the landlord to contact the resident as he had raised matters directly to us. On 13 February 2025 the landlord informed us it had received and acknowledged the resident’s complaint formally made on 10 February 2025. These actions were within the expected response times.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 February 2025. This was within the response time set out in the Code.
On 20 February 2025 we communicated the resident’s dissatisfaction to the landlord. The landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate and consistent with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 February 2025. This was within the expected response time. However, the letter referred to the resident escalating his complaint on 24 February, rather than 20 February 2025.
While an inaccurate date may cause upset, this did not affect the landlord meeting the expected response times. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the detriment of this error may be minimal. The landlord should consider this as a learning opportunity to minimise similar happening again.
The landlord’s stage 2 response addressed the resident’s complaint points, and additional matters raised regarding the welfare of a neighbour. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to thoroughly answer the resident’s concerns.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of items left in communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Complete a block inspection to identify any items left within the communal areas.
2. Write to all resident’s in the block and ensure it enforces the removal of all items within the communal areas. This should include its position regarding the presence of doormats.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident via the agreed communication process (avoiding using a withheld, private, or mobile number or leaving voicemail messages) to discuss his current ASB concerns.
2. Uses the date error in the stage 2 complaint response as learning for future responses.
3. Considers whether it already has an alternative doormat solution at the entrance of the building, which would benefit all resident’s entering the block.