London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202506921)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour since October 2024. She was dissatisfied with the actions taken by the landlord and remains so to date. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

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

6. The landlord did not follow its policy in dealing with the reports of ASB. It failed to create an action plan and respond appropriately to the resident’s reports.
7. The landlord’s record keeping hindered its complaint investigation and poor communication caused further detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling   

8. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It provided inaccurate responses and failed to identify any failures in its handling of the substantive issue.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

Our Investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that upon receiving a report of ASB, it will contact the reporter to undertake an interview. Upon completion of this, it will then conduct a risk assessment and confirm an action plan with the resident detailing what is expected of them and the landlord throughout the process.
10. The resident reported ASB on 11 October 2024. The landlord completed a risk assessment the same day and attempted to contact the resident to discuss the reports. This was positive and in line with its ASB policy. When contact attempts failed, the landlord emailed the resident on 17 October 2024 confirming multiple attempts had been made. This was appropriate.
11. The risk assessment determined that the level of risk was high. However, despite this, there is no evidence that an action plan was created to address the ASB or to mitigate the level of risk. There is also no evidence that any further attempts were made to contact the resident to discuss her report and what action it would be taking. This was a failure to follow its own ASB policy and a concerning lack of care towards the resident who at the time of the reports was on maternity leave and was often alone in the property with a young baby.
12. On 28 February 2025, the resident reported that her neighbour tried to force entry into her property. The police attended. The landlord failed to contact the resident, review its risk assessment, or create an action plan. Given the direct risk of harm, it is unclear why the landlord did not take action to contact the resident. We have also seen no evidence that it made enquiries with the police. Its failure to do so was inappropriate. The nature of the incident also suggested the ASB had escalated, and it is unclear why on receipt of the report the landlord did not take steps to review its handling of the previous report. If it had done so, it may have identified that it had failed to create an action plan and that steps had not been taken to investigate the resident’s previous concerns or to discuss the matter with her neighbour. This was a missed opportunity.
13. The landlord carried out a joint visit with the police on 6 December 2024 to the neighbour’s property. It then issued a CPW on 13 March 2025. This suggests that the landlord was taking steps to investigate and deal with the report the resident made in February 2025. However, its failure to record these steps has meant that the details of the actions it took are unclear. There is also no evidence that it communicated with the resident about the matter appropriately at the time. While it is acknowledged that some information would have been confidential, the landlord should reasonably have provided the resident with some reassurance that it was looking into the matter further with a view to taking action.
14. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. Landlords must maintain an accurate audit trail of all interactions to assess performance and provide contemporaneous evidence to independent bodies, such as the Ombudsman, in case of disputes. Our Spotlight report Repairing Trust (May 2025) explores this further. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated there were two ASB reports from the resident since July 2024. However, evidence shows 6 reports were made between October 2024 and March 2025, when the stage 2 complaint was issued. The resident says more reports were made, but we have no evidence of these. However, poor record keeping led to incorrect information being given to the resident and prevented the landlord from fully reviewing its actions during the investigation. Poor records further hindered this Service’s ability to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matter. An order has been made for a case review with particular emphasis on record keeping.
15. Communication with the resident was poor. She repeatedly stated that her reports were not acknowledged and she was never informed of any actions taken. Of the 6 recorded ASB reports, the landlord acknowledged and responded to one. Not only was this a departure from the ASB policy, but it was poor customer service and added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It also left her unaware of positive steps, such as issuing the CPW. Proper communication could have reassured her that the landlord was addressing the issues and may have prevented the complaint. The lack of updates or a clear plan contributed significantly to her distress.
16. The landlord departed from its ASB policy in handling the resident’s reports. Poor record keeping and failure to communicate effectively further hindered progress and caused significant detriment to the resident. The landlord also failed to recognise these issues within its complaints process and offered no redress, adding to the resident’s distress and requiring her to escalate the complaint to this Service. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with this complaint. Due to the failings outlined in this report the landlord is ordered to pay £600 to the resident. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for failures which have had a significant impact on the resident.
17. The resident advises that the case remains ongoing and she continues to report issues without receiving a response. She also stated that she raised a second complaint, which has not been acknowledged and is now outside the complaint handling timescales. These matters fall outside the scope of this investigation, as the landlord has not had the opportunity to review them. However, we recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the case and implement an action plan if it has not already done so. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to that complaint, she may refer it to us for investigation.

18. The landlord responded to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within its policy timescales and those set out in the Code. The resident stated she tried to escalate the stage 2 complaint on 12 March 2025, but it was not escalated until 5 days later. While we note the resident’s comments, we have seen no evidence to support this. As such, we cannot find that the landlord failed to escalate the complaint in a timely manner. While no failing was identified in complaint handling timescales, the landlord’s policy at the time said that stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 30 working days. In its latest self assessment it has advised this has now been brough in line with timescales set out in the Code.
19. The following complaint handling failures were identified at stage 1:
    1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that all complaints will be dealt with by a complaints officer to ensure impartiality. However, the stage 1 complaint response was issued by the ASB Manager, which was a departure from its policy.
    2. The complaint response was issued on the same day it was received. The lack of detail or clarity in the response raises a question about how thorough the landlord’s investigation was.
    3. While the landlord commented on its handling of the ASB overall, it did not respond to the resident’s specific concerns.
20. The stage 2 complaint investigation missed the opportunity to identify and address previous failings. The landlord provided incorrect information to the resident regarding her reports of ASB and did not address its failure to follow its ASB policy. This was a missed chance to engage with the resident and provide clarity around the issues she had been raising for some time. It was poor complaint handling which lacked empathy and did not follow our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right. It also prevented the landlord from learning from the complaint, which is central to the Code.
21. The complaint handling failures identified in this report likely compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It left her with no resolution to her complaint meaning the only avenue to progress the case was to approach this Service. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord either did not keep, or did not provide us with, sufficiently detailed records of its interactions with the resident. It is reminded that as well as hampering our investigations, inadequate record keeping can limit its ability to resolve complaints and can lead to delays in it fulfilling its obligations as a landlord.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor. Prior to and throughout the complaints process, it failed to clearly explain to her what its intended plan of action was. This was despite the resident clearly requesting it provide this information. This was not in keeping with its policy which states it will discuss an action plan with those reporting ASB.