City of Westminster Council (202424032)

Decision
Case ID	202424032
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor studio flat and has stated she is undergoing cancer treatment. In April 2024, she reported noise issues concerning her neighbour, who will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’ in this report. In June 2024, the neighbour made a counter allegation against the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Counter allegations made against the resident by the neighbour.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
      2. Counter allegations made against the resident by the neighbour.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB

4. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its ASB policy, responding promptly to reports, offering support, and engaging external agencies where needed. Despite challenges posed by limited resident engagement, its actions were proportionate and consistent with its obligations.

Counter allegations made against the resident by the neighbour

5. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its ASB policy by taking a multi-agency approach, providing opportunities for engagement, and basing enforcement on verified evidence rather than allegations.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord complied with its complaints policy at stage 1 and correctly acknowledged the stage 2 escalation but failed to meet the stage 2 response timescale. It apologised, offered compensation, and later increased the amount.

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
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation previously offered to her at stage 2 and for its delay in providing the compensation form, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 April 2024	The resident reported loud music from the neighbour to the landlord. The landlord responded the same day, leaving a message stating it would attempt to witness the noise from the street. During the visit, no noise was heard, and the landlord noted that no further action would be taken.
4 June 2024 to 31 August 2024	The neighbour made counter allegations about noise from the resident. A risk assessment of the counter allegations was carried out and assessed as high risk. 2 warning letters were sent to the resident inviting her into the landlord’s offices for an interview. A noise abatement notice was served on the resident.
3 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She disputed the allegations made against her and said she felt victimised by the landlord. Additionally, she said there was insufficient notice provided in order for her to attend a meeting.
12 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It outlined the action it had taken, which included 2 telephone calls and 2 hand–delivered letters giving notice of appointments for 31 July and 6 August 2024. It explained that joint visits with the police were standard practice in ASB cases and the ASB team had acted appropriately. It did not uphold the complaint.
15 September 2024	The resident expressed dissatisfaction, which appeared to be an escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said that she was being harassed by the neighbour and mentioned the ASB had been ongoing since 2020.
20 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and said it would provide a stage 2 response by 18 October 2024.
22 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, outlining the actions taken, including attempts to contact the resident. It stressed the importance of a meeting to clarify her desired outcomes, as email correspondence alone was deemed insufficient. It also noted that the adult social care team had tried to engage with her without success. The landlord acknowledged delays in providing the stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation for failing to meet its published timescales. An additional £50 was offered to the resident on 23 January 2025 to compensate for the landlord’s failure to provide the required compensation form in a timely manner.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident stated that the landlord had not been transparent about the dates on which she was alleged to have caused noise nuisance. She explained that, due to undergoing cancer treatment, she preferred communication by email and did not consider interviews necessary. She also expressed that the landlord had failed to address the ASB and requested soundproofing for both her property and the neighbouring property as a resolution.

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	The resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbour dispute was responsible. It is for us to determine whether, in its response to reports of ASB, the landlord followed its relevant policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
8. The resident raised concerns with us that the landlord treated her differently and discriminated against her. While it is not within our remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, we will review the landlord’s overall handling of the case, including its response to the resident’s concerns.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that when an ASB complaint is received, the landlord will promptly interview the complainant, investigate, and assess the circumstances to decide on an appropriate response. Any intervention will be proportionate to the nature, scale, and severity of the issue.
10. The evidence shows that the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbour on 19 April 2024. The landlord responded promptly the same day by leaving a voicemail for the resident and attending the location to investigate. During the visit, no noise was detected, and the landlord concluded that no further action was required at that time. This response was appropriate, as the landlord acted quickly to acknowledge the report, attempted direct contact with the resident, and carried out an on-site assessment despite being unable to speak with her. These steps demonstrated a reasonable and proactive approach to addressing the report in line with its ASB policy.
11. On 1 August 2024, the resident again reported noise nuisance. The landlord’s case notes indicate that she appeared distressed during the call, which lasted approximately 30 minutes. A staff member recommended referring the matter to the ambulance service due to concerns for her wellbeing. When the resident was informed of this referral, she became upset, and the call ended abruptly. The landlord’s actions were appropriate, as it sought to ensure the resident received the necessary support given her evident distress, demonstrating a duty of care and a proactive approach to safeguarding her wellbeing.
12. On 9 September 2024, the resident reported loud music from the neighbour during unsocial hours, noting that this issue had been raised previously and a noise diary provided. On the same day, she also reported repeated car horn beeping and supplied the landlord with the vehicle’s registration number. However, there were no case notes indicating any action taken by the landlord, so we are unable to conclude that it responded appropriately. It is essential for landlords to maintain clear and accurate records of all actions taken, even when no action is deemed necessary. Comprehensive record-keeping provides transparency, demonstrates the decision-making process, and creates an audit trail of interventions. In this instance, the records were not sufficiently detailed to evidence the landlord’s approach.
13. On 20 and 21 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding noise nuisance. The landlord responded by leaving a voicemail and, following the second report, attended the property. Case notes indicate that upon arrival, the police were already present. After waiting for them to leave, the landlord spoke with the resident, who confirmed that the noise had stopped. The landlord advised that it would therefore leave. The notes further record that the resident became angry and shouted at staff before the interaction ended. The landlord’s response was appropriate, as it acted promptly on both reports, attempted to engage with the resident, and carried out an on-site assessment in line with its policy. These actions demonstrate a reasonable and proportionate approach to investigating the complaint despite the challenging circumstances.
14. On 29 October 2024, a joint visit was carried out by the landlord’s ASB team and adult social services, despite the resident calling earlier that day to cancel the appointment. Case notes indicate that during the call, the resident appeared angry and distressed. Upon arrival, the landlord attempted to engage with her but received no response. It was noted that the resident increased the volume of her music, indicating she was at home during the visit. Additionally, there was a sign at the property indicating that she had cancer. Attending the appointment was appropriate, as the landlord had a duty of care and the earlier call demonstrated the resident was in significant distress, compounded by previous interactions that week. The landlord’s decision to proceed ensured that support services were available and reflected a proactive approach to safeguarding the resident’s wellbeing.
15. The joint visit also gave the landlord an opportunity to discuss any ongoing ASB or noise-related concerns with the resident. However, it was beyond the landlord’s control if the resident chose not to engage during the visit. While the landlord can create opportunities for dialogue and offer support, meaningful progress relies on the resident’s willingness to participate. Engagement is essential for clarifying issues, agreeing on next steps, and ensuring that any interventions are proportionate and effective. In this instance, the landlord fulfilled its responsibility by making itself available and attempting to address the concerns, even though the resident declined to engage.
16. In her escalation request, the resident expressed she was unhappy with the ASB she had been experiencing. The landlord responded on 22 November 2022, explaining that it had offered to meet with the resident, but she had declined and requested email correspondence only. The landlord emphasised the importance of participation in a discussion to find a resolution. It said this would enable it to address issues the resident had raised in relation to the need for a video doorbell and soundproofing in her property. It reiterated its offer of a meeting with its ASB team to “allow for a focused discussion on her case”.
17. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it clearly outlined the steps taken to assist the resident in progressing her ASB reports and reiterated its offer to meet with her. While it is understandable that the resident declined a meeting due to her undergoing cancer treatment, the landlord’s ASB policy requires interviewing the reporting party to obtain a detailed account of events. Evidence shows the landlord made repeated efforts to engage with the resident and conducted visits to witness the ASB and noise she reported. This information was essential for the landlord to approach the alleged perpetrator, as its policy states that they must be interviewed and informed of the nature of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were proportionate and in line with its obligations, demonstrating a reasonable approach despite the resident’s limited engagement (partly due to ill health).
18. In January 2025, the resident reported further ASB, including harassment and racial abuse from the neighbour and local teenagers. She informed both the police and the landlord of these incidents. Evidence shows the landlord contacted the police to obtain details and any actions or outcomes from their investigation. The landlord also continued to liaise with the resident in February and April 2025, seeking updates on any ASB she was experiencing. On one occasion, case notes indicate the resident ended a call after realising it was the landlord. Subsequently, on 25 April 2025, the landlord sent a letter explaining its repeated attempts to contact her and advising that, if no response were received, the case would be closed. This approach was reasonable, as the landlord actively engaged with the resident regarding her concerns and provided clear notice that the case could be closed, giving her the opportunity to respond and supply the necessary information. This demonstrates a fair and transparent process.
19. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and consistent with its ASB policy. It responded promptly to the resident’s reports and made repeated efforts to engage with her to progress the case. In addition, it sought to provide support when the resident was clearly distressed, demonstrating an appropriate duty of care. The evidence also shows that the landlord attempted to investigate the reported issues, offered meetings to clarify concerns, and liaised with external agencies where necessary. While the resident’s limited engagement presented challenges, the landlord acted proportionately and in line with its obligations.

Complaint	Counter allegations made against the resident by the neighbour
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s ASB policy states that counter allegations from an alleged perpetrator may require investigation. Evidence shows that between 4 June 2024 and 28 February 2025, the neighbour submitted reports alleging various ASB issues by the resident, including loud music and shouting. Given the volume and nature of these reports, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to investigate the allegations. Doing so aligned with its duty to treat all parties fairly, maintain impartiality, and ensure that any potential breaches of tenancy conditions are addressed appropriately.
21. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the police to discuss the ongoing ASB concerns raised by the neighbour. This action was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that it will adopt a multi-agency approach when addressing reports of ASB. By involving both the police and the landlord, the response demonstrated a collaborative effort to manage and resolve the reported issues.
22. On 25 July 2024, the landlord hand-delivered a written warning to the resident regarding the ASB reports it had received. The letter reminded the resident of her tenancy obligations and invited her to attend an interview scheduled for 31 July 2024, giving 6 days’ notice. The resident did not attend this meeting. Subsequently, the landlord, accompanied by the police, hand-delivered a second warning letter and arranged another interview for 6 August 2024, again providing 6 days’ notice. These steps show that the landlord followed a structured escalation process, giving the resident clear opportunities to engage and respond to the allegations before taking further action.
23. On 31 August 2024, the landlord served the resident with a Noise Abatement Notice. This enforcement action followed observations by the landlord confirming that excessive noise was emanating from the resident’s property. Issuing this notice was a significant escalation in the landlord’s response, demonstrating that previous warnings and opportunities for engagement had not resolved the issue. It also reflected the landlord’s commitment to using appropriate legal remedies as outlined in its ASB policy.
24. On 2 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she had not received any letters inviting her to attend interviews regarding the ASB allegations. The landlord explained that the letters had been hand-delivered to her property, in line with its usual procedure for ensuring delivery. Following this explanation, the resident apparently ended the call. Given that the letters were physically delivered by the landlord, it is reasonable to conclude that they were received by the resident. This suggests that the landlord took appropriate steps to communicate with the resident and provide opportunities for engagement before escalating the matter further.
25. In her complaint, the resident disputed the allegations made by her neighbour and said that she had not been given sufficient notice to attend the scheduled interview. She stated that she was asked to attend on 26 July 2024 but only received the letter on 25 July 2024. Nevertheless, the accompanying letter to the Noise Abatement Notice clarified that the landlord’s officers had personally witnessed the noise nuisance, meaning the issue was supported by direct evidence rather than being based solely on the neighbour’s allegations. The landlord is entitled to rely on evidence gathered by its officers when taking enforcement action. Furthermore, the letters reviewed by us confirm that the resident was provided with 6 days’ notice for the interviews, which is a reasonable timeframe and in line with standard practice.
26. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord highlighted the steps it had taken to provide the resident with opportunities to engage, noting that all correspondence had been hand-delivered to ensure receipt. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about its visits being conducted jointly with the police. It explained that this approach was standard practice for its ASB team, as working in partnership with the police forms part of its multi-agency strategy for managing ASB. This explanation was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy, which promotes collaborative working with relevant agencies to effectively address and resolve such issues.
27. In her escalation request, the resident stated that she felt harassed by both her neighbour and local teenagers. She described the situation as “tit for tat” and claimed that whoever reported her was lying. In its response, the landlord reiterated the efforts it had made to engage with the resident, including attempts to involve adult social services as part of a holistic approach to address her concerns. This demonstrated the landlord’s intention to provide comprehensive support. However, the resident did not engage with these offers. The landlord also proposed a meeting with its ASB team at a time convenient for the resident, further showing its willingness to resolve the matter collaboratively. As previously noted, the landlord did not rely solely on allegations; its officers had personally witnessed noise nuisance emanating from the property. Additionally, the landlord’s actions reflect an ongoing commitment to engage with the resident and address any support needs she might have. Therefore, its response at stage 2 was reasonable.
28. On 26 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and requested that all future communication be in writing. She also stated that she did not require the landlord to make any referrals to adult services. During the same conversation, the resident expressed her view that the underlying issue was a lack of soundproofing in her property and asked the landlord to install soundproofing measures. However, based on the evidence reviewed, the landlord’s enforcement actions were supported by observations from its own officers and the police, which confirmed that noise nuisance was occurring. Furthermore, the Noise Abatement Notice served on the resident indicated that the behaviour itself was considered unreasonable, rather than the effect being attributable to structural or soundproofing deficiencies. In light of this, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider installing soundproofing, as the evidence pointed to behavioural factors rather than property defects.
29. Between December 2024 and April 2025, the landlord continued to receive reports of ASB and maintained regular liaison with the police to address the ongoing concerns. These collaborative efforts ultimately resulted in legal proceedings being initiated against the resident, culminating in the court granting an injunction. Based on the evidence available to us, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord failed to fairly investigate counter allegations against the resident. On the contrary, the outcome of the court proceedings indicates that the evidence presented by the landlord was robust and supported by independent verification. This demonstrated that the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy by pursuing enforcement action only after thorough investigation and multi-agency involvement.
30. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy throughout the period in question. It adopted a multi-agency approach by working closely with the police and provided the resident with multiple opportunities to engage and address the concerns raised. The landlord also explored supportive measures, including referrals to adult services, and offered meetings at the resident’s convenience. Enforcement action, including the service of a Noise Abatement Notice and subsequent court proceedings, was based on direct observations by the landlord’s officers and corroborated by the police, rather than solely on neighbour allegations. The landlord was not obliged to install soundproofing, as the nuisance was behavioural rather than structural. Ultimately, the court’s decision to grant an injunction further supports that the landlord’s actions were proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with its legal and policy obligations.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

31. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 20 days if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to complainants.
32. On 3 September 2024, the resident requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 September 2024, in line with its complaints policy, and issued its stage 1 response on 12 September 2024 within the required timescale.
33. On 15 September 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction. The landlord acknowledged this as an escalation to stage 2 on 20 September 2024, again in accordance with its policy. It advised the resident that a response would be provided by 18 October 2024.
34. The resident chased the landlord on 25 October 2024 for the stage 2 response, and case notes confirm the landlord attempted to contact her the same day to discuss the matter. This was appropriate given the delay in providing the stage 2 response. The resident chased again on 29 October 2024, and the landlord eventually issued its stage 2 response on 22 November 2024—15 working days outside its policy timescale. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation, asking her to complete a compensation form which it said was attached. This was appropriate, as the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
35. In November 2024 and January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to request the compensation form, as it apparently had not been attached to the stage 2 response. She also requested an additional £50 for the delay in providing this. The landlord agreed and offered the resident a further £50, demonstrating a resolution-focused approach.
36. In summary, the landlord generally adhered to its complaints policy at stage 1 and appropriately acknowledged the escalation to stage 2. However, it failed to meet its stage 2 response timescale, resulting in a delay of 15 working days. The landlord acknowledged this failure, apologised, and offered compensation, later increasing the amount following further requests from the resident. These actions demonstrated a resolution-focused approach and aligned with our dispute resolution principles, despite the initial service failure.

Learning

37. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was of a good standard, with clear and detailed notes maintained throughout most of the case. There was only one instance where no record was made of its actions, which represents a minor gap. To strengthen its approach, the landlord should ensure that all interactions and steps are documented without exception.

Communication

39. The landlord was late in issuing its stage 2 response, and although it offered compensation for the delay, this process was also prolonged. The landlord could benefit from following the Code and simplifying its compensation process by ensuring forms are sent promptly and reducing the need for follow-ups.