City of Westminster Council (202452017)

Decision
Case ID	202452017
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local council. The complaint relates to antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health. In February 2024 he was assaulted outside the property. He left the property soon afterwards. It is understood that he has lived with a relative since the assault took place.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB

4. There is a lack of compelling evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for ASB related failures. There is evidence that the landlord followed its procedures and/or acted reasonably.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord identified a delay during its complaints process. It addressed this in line with its compensation procedure. It subsequently issued a late further response. There is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted by its further response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £70 compensation which it previously awarded him (in relation to this complaint).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had experienced prolonged ASB from neighbours. He also said the landlord had not responded to his ASB reports. He said he was unsafe at the property. He referenced several alleged ASB incidents. For example, he said that: A neighbour had threatened to set fire to the property. A support worker had witnessed this incident. The resident had notified the police about it.
21 March 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. In summary, it cited a lack of ASB reports from the resident. It said it had followed its correct processes in relation to the ASB reports that it had received. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s other key points were:   The resident wanted the landlord to move him to another property. The police did not support an urgent move. The resident could consider moving via a mutual exchange process. It was willing to meet the resident to discuss his housing situation.
31 March 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said that, over the past year, members of the landlord’s staff had not responded to his emails. In summary, he was unhappy with the landlord’s overall communication.
22 April 2025	The resident added to his complaint. He said he had been “couch surfing” for over a year. He also said he had been subject to domestic abuse and hate crimes. He said he was unable to return to the property, and his situation was exacerbating his mental health conditions.
8 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It disputed that it had overlooked reports or concerns from the resident. It also disputed that it had failed to provide adequate support. Based on a handling delay, it partly upheld the complaint. It awarded the resident £20 to address this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In July 2025, the resident told us he wanted the landlord to address the ASB and arrange a permanent move. He also said it should apologise, review its policies, and pay him some compensation. In a subsequent phone call, he reiterated that he wanted the landlord to move him.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB
Finding	No maladministration

6. In 2023 the resident reported intrusive noise from neighbours. The landlord says it closed a related ASB case in May 2023 due to a lack of further reports from the resident. In summary, it also says the resident did not make any other reports until the assault occurred in February 2024. We have not seen any compelling evidence to the contrary.
7. On 26 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that he had been assaulted. He said he had been attacked from behind and did not see the perpetrator. He also said that he had been injured. The landlord’s case records show he felt that the perpetrator was a neighbour. We recognise that this was a serious and distressing incident for the resident.
8. The landlord says that it handled the resident’s related ASB case correctly. The evidence supports this assertion. For example, the landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
   1. Respond to reports within 24 hours.
   2. Complete a risk assessment.
   3. Agree an action plan with the reporting resident.
   4. Offer them additional support.
   5. Work in partnership with external agencies such as the police.
9. In this case, the landlord logged an ASB case on the day of the resident’s report. It also sent him an action plan. The plan shows he had declined support from the landlord. It said the landlord would obtain a risk assessment from the police and maintain regular contact with the resident. These were reasonable steps in line with the landlord’s policy.
10. The landlord has supplied its related correspondence with the police. It told them that the resident had left the property and was afraid to return. It also said that he wanted the landlord to arrange an urgent move for safety reasons. It said it would use the police’s assessment to decide if an urgent move was required. This was a reasonable approach.
11. The police replied to the landlord on 21 March 2024. In summary, they said that they lacked evidence about the assault.They also said they were not aware of any risk to the resident and had been unable to discuss his concerns with him. They said the resident had previously told them that he had evidence of ASB. However, they also said that he had not shared thisevidence. The landlord was entitled to rely on the policeassessment.
12. Records show the landlord was unable to contact the resident about his ASB case at various points. However, it did update him on 29 April 2024. It relayed the information from the police. It also said it was unlikely to offer him an urgent move. Based on the landlord’s call records, we find that its related communication was reasonable and clear.
13. During the above referenced call, the landlord said that its housing team could discuss other ways to move. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to alternative options. By doing this, the landlord also showed a supportive approach.
14. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 July 2024. It said it had been unable to contact him recently. It also said it would close its ASB case if he did not reply. It confirmed that it was willing to arrange support on request. The landlord’s ASB policy says it can close a case if no further reports are received. The landlord’s email was consistent with its policy.
15. From the evidence provided, there is no indication that the resident engaged with the landlord’s email. Similarly, there is no indication that he made any further ASB reports to the landlord subsequently. However, he did continue to request an urgent move. The landlord has policies and procedures that govern its approach to urgent moves.
16. A summary of the landlord’s approach can be found on its website. Ultimately, it deems urgent moves to be a “last resort” that can be considered in exceptional circumstances. In most cases, it will ask the police to confirm that the involved resident is at risk of harm. In this case, the landlord obtained a police assessment in line with its process. This was appropriate. There is no indication that the police subsequently changed their risk assessment.
17. Between February and April 2025, the resident obtained statements to support his request for an urgent move. This included correspondence from a doctor and victim support service. There is evidence that the council declined to move the resident on medical grounds in April 2025. Complaints about health and/or welfare based transfer requests are within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s remit.
18. From its policy and process documents, there is no evidence to show that the landlord should have arranged an urgent move based on the resident’s supporting statements. In the circumstances, police support was required. Overall, there is no indication that the resident was eligible for an urgent move. The landlord was not obliged to provide one.
19. In summary, the resident says the landlord did not respond to his reports and concerns about ASB. He has referenced a lack of action, communication, and support on its part. The landlord disputed this in its complaint responses. It said there was a lack of evidence to support his concerns. It also said it had followed its procedures. We have not seen any compelling evidence to the contrary. Overall, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord has supplied a complaints policy which refers to the Code.
21. Based on the period between 5 and 21 March 2025, it took the landlord 12 working days to issue a stage 1 response. Its complaints policy says it must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it must issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. This aligns with the Code. In this case, the landlord issued a stage 1 response in line with its policy and the Code.
22. Based on the period between 31 March and 8 May 2025, it took the landlord 26 working days to issue a stage 2 response. Its complaints policy says it must issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days after sending an acknowledgement. This aligns with the Code. In this case, the landlord exceeded the maximumtimeframe (25 working days).
23. In mitigation, the landlord told the resident that it needed more investigation time on 7 May 2025. It subsequently adhered to a revised deadline which it provided at that point. Under its policy, more investigation time was available to the landlord providing it kept the resident informed. This aligns with the Code. The landlord’s approach was appropriate.
24. The landlord acknowledged a delay in its stage 2 response. It awarded the resident £20 in compensation to address this. Its compensation procedure shows the landlord can award up to £20 in cases where it has not adhered to its published service standards. It was reasonable for the landlord to award some compensation in line with its procedure.
25. In September 2025 the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and issued a further response. This was about 4 months after it had responded at stage 2. The landlord awarded the resident another £50 in compensation at this point. The response wording shows that the landlord’s review was prompted by our involvement in the resident’s case.
26. While the landlord’s additional compensation was welcome, it was late and stemmed from our intervention. As a result, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Code says, “Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response”. We cannot use the landlord’s late response to reach a reasonable redress finding.
27. The landlord issued a further response because it believed it had not addressed the resident’s request to move in its stage 2 response. It awarded additional compensation based on a related complaint handling failure. However, the landlord had briefly mentioned the resident’s request to move in its stage 2 response. In summary, it disputed any assertion that it did not respond to his requests and concerns about ASB.
28. Having considered the parties’ complaint correspondence, we find there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord overlooked a key complaint issue in its stage 2 response. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence to show that he was adversely impacted by the landlord’s late further response.
29. Overall, the landlord identified a delay during its complaints process. Having done so, it addressed this in line with its compensation procedure. It subsequently departed from the Code by issuing a late further response. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was adversely impacted by this response, or a previous complaint handling failure. As a result, we find that the landlord did enough to put things right for him during its internal complaints process. This represents reasonable redress by the landlord.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any record keeping issues.

Communication

31. Our investigation did not highlight any communication failures. For example, there is no indication that the landlord provided conflicting information about the resident’s request for an urgent move.