London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202501506)

Decision
Case ID	202501506
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	12 February 2026

Background

The resident moved into the property while recovering from cancer treatment in March 2024. He soon reported noise and Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) concerns about his neighbours. The resident said that cracked floor tiles contained low level asbestos. He was dissatisfied the landlord had not told him this before he moved in. In July 2024, he applied for a management transfer because of neighbour issues and concerns about the property. The landlord refused the applications, including on appeal. The resident said that his ASB concerns continued.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
2. The resident’s management transfer application.
3. The resident’s concerns about removal of asbestos containing materials from the property.
4. The resident’s reports of a buzzing noise in the air vents.
5. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
  1. The resident’s reports of noise and ASB concerns.
  2. The resident’s management transfer application.
  3. The resident’s reports of a buzzing noise in the air vents.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the removal of asbestos containing materials from the resident’s property.
3. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s noise and ASB concerns

The landlord delayed responding to noise and ASB reports. It did not record reports and has not shown that it acted on the resident’s concerns. Although the resident sent evidence for months, the landlord did not say it could not access the files until 15 months later. It also made no attempt to put matters right.

The resident’s management transfer application

The resident’s medical evidence did not say that the landlord should move him because of the property or his conditions and recovery. However, the landlord did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or all relevant evidence. This included a third party police report about an overheard threat to harm him.

The removal of asbestos containing materials from the resident’s property

Once the landlord became aware of the cracked tiles, it arranged removal and completed an air test. The test showed fibre levels within acceptable ranges. There was also no evidence of exposure.

A buzzing noise in the air vents

The resident reported the buzzing soon after moving in (April 2024). The landlord inspected in June 2024 and said it would carry out a further investigation, but there is no evidence this took place. The resident therefore lived with the noise despite its reported impact on his mental health.

The complaint

The landlord did not recognise an expression of dissatisfaction in June 2024. When it finally logged a complaint in April 2025, it delayed acknowledgment and then delayed the stage 1 response. Despite a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) issued by us, the landlord has not shown that it issued a stage 2 response to the resident. Therefore, the complaints process appears incomplete.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the Chief Executive Officer. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,400. We break this down as: £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its response to the resident’s noise and ASB concerns. £200 for its response to the resident’s management transfer application. £200 for its failure to act promptly around the buzzing noise in the resident’s property. £350 for its complaint handling. The landlord must pay the compensation to the resident. It must also provide documentary evidence to show it has paid the resident.	No later than 12 March 2026
3	Communication Order The landlord must speak to the resident and identify if it is able to, or unable to access the Google drive/ OneDrive folder he has provided. If it is unable to access the folder, it should inform the resident and agree a method he can provide it with the evidence. It must also consider any third parties’ report to the police and the police evidence. It must then confirm to him how it aims to proceed in writing. This must include: How it categorises his concerns e.g. noise complaints, ASB or both. A risk assessment. If it will deal with the issues as ASB, and if not explain why. A date it will provide the resident with an update, and a date it will provide him with an outcome of its investigation after reviewing the evidence. Provide the resident with information on the next steps it will take. Explain how this impacts on any management transfer applications. It must provide its findings in writing to the resident and provide us with a copy.	No later than 12 March 2026
4	Inspection Order The landlord must inspect the resident’s property and identify the source of the buzzing. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. The inspection should explain what is causing the buzzing, and any repairs necessary to resolve the issue. If it identifies the buzzing comes from his neighbour’s property, it must explain how it aims to resolve this. The landlord must provide both us and the resident with its findings and provide a date it aims to begin any works identified.	No later than 12 March 2026
5	Learning order The landlord must review this case and identify what went wrong. The review should be completed by a senior manager independent of the service areas involved in this case. It must provide a report detailing: What lessons it has learned from reviewing the case, and how it aims to better the services it provides around noise, ASB, management transfers, repairs, vulnerabilities, and its complaint handling.	No later than 12 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 June 2024	The resident told the landlord he had spoken to both neighbours about the noise and his concerns. He said one of the neighbours was aggressive to him. He provided a link to a google drive which he explained evidenced his noise concerns. He also said he had reported the nonstop buzzing sound on numerous occasions. Its contractor confirmed the sound came from his neighbour’s air vent. He said he was writing to emphasise that the housing conditions the landlord deemed acceptable affected his wellbeing and mental health. He told the landlord he was recovering from a tumour removal and radiotherapy. The landlord responded on the same day, and said the resident should address his concerns with the noise and ASB to its ASB team. Regarding his housing needs, it considered him adequately housed, and he could not reapply to join the housing list. He could however explore options such as a mutual exchange. It said that it had referred his concerns to its noise and ASB team to investigate.
7 February 2025	Following the resident’s management applications, he said he was following up with the landlord. He said he had not received a meaningful response about his ongoing situation. He said for 12 months, he had documented ASB, prior threats, and daily harassment with no resolution. Despite police reports and evidence, he remained in an unsafe, uncomfortable environment, facing continued taunts and intimidation. He needed a clear update on the steps the landlord was taking to resolve the issue urgently.
29 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said he endured ongoing ASB, noise, and threats, despite it issuing Noise Abatement Notices (NAN) against his neighbour in 2024. He raised concerns about data breaches and lack of action on threats. The resident raised concerns about asbestos exposure after it removed cracked tiles without warning. He said the situation affected his physical and mental health during cancer recovery. He felt the housing options offered after his management transfer applications was refused were unrealistic and did not meet his needs. He requested an urgent transfer to safe accommodation outside the borough. He also asked for a full review of the landlord’s handling of the case, including data breaches and lack of action on threats.
7 May 2025	The landlord asked the resident to provide a reference for his stage 1 complaint. It said that it had searched under his name and could only find “member enquiries.” The resident responded on the same day and said he made a formal complaint on 7 June 2024. He said the landlord did not log his appeals regarding the management move and he received no guidance, or support despite sending many emails. This stopped it from recording or resolving his concerns properly. He told the landlord that he had managed the situation for over a year while recovering from cancer.
28 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised that it did not log earlier contact as a complaint. It explained it had treated the issues as a management transfer request. It said it had received no ASB or noise reports from the resident since June 2024. It urged him to report issues formally and provide police outcomes. It noted that he reported threats to the police, not to the landlord. Regarding asbestos, the landlord said it followed the correct procedures for removal of asbestos containing materials from his property. It said it completed an air test which confirmed no harmful exposure. It told him that his medical evidence did not say he needed to move home. As he did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, the landlord said his options were Homefinder or a mutual exchange. It said that it had previously issued a NAN, and police found no supporting evidence of crime. Both management transfer panels decided he did not qualify for a transfer.
29 May 2025	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord’s response was inaccurate, especially about ASB reports and police involvement. He said it did not act on his neighbour’s threats, noise issues, and did not record, review, or act on submitted evidence. He said it ignored the asbestos risks and the impact on his cancer recovery. He told the landlord he felt unsupported despite reporting issues to senior staff for over a year. He asked for a full stage 2 investigation and proper review of all evidence, risks, and procedural failures.
17 October 2025	Following the landlord’s delays in providing its stage 2 response, we issued it with a CHFO and accepted the case for investigation based on the landlord’s failure to respond.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us several times until January 2026. He explained he had been chasing the stage 2 response. and the landlord had told him it would provide its response in June 2025, and in July 2025 but had not done so.
2 December 2025	The landlord provided us with a draft stage 2 response dated 29 September 2025. It is unclear if it provided the resident with a copy of this response. The landlord said it could not access some of the evidence the resident had given. However, after reviewing the case, it found that asbestos removal followed all required safety rules and air testing showed no harmful exposure. The landlord said it had refused the resident’s management transfer request because noise issues and asbestos concerns were not grounds for a transfer. The neighbour dispute did not meet the threshold due to insufficient evidence. Records showed his last noise and ASB reports were in May and June 2024. There were no recent ASB complaints logged and no police findings of crime, safeguarding issues, or an ongoing ASB investigation. The medical documents he provided did not say the property was unsuitable for his health. The landlord said his evidence contradicted its records and asked him to resend NHS letters and other documents it could not access so it could review them properly.

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 noise and ASB concerns
Finding	Maladministration

What we cannot consider

We note that the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the property within his expression of dissatisfaction in June 2024. We cannot consider such issues as this falls within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because it relates to the local authority’s housing allocation. Such issues fall under its function as a local authority, and the LGSCO deals with such issues. For the sake of clarity, we have investigated the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction around the noise and ASB concerns from June 2024. We have investigated his concerns about the management transfer from February 2025.
The resident raised noise and ASB concerns. We cannot decide whether behaviour amounts to a statutory nuisance or ASB, but we can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in response.
The resident explained the situation affected his physical and mental health. He said it affected his recovery from cancer. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury, or impact on health. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The local authority’s environmental health department issued a NAN to the neighbour before the resident moved in. The housing department (the landlord) was aware of the issue. It referred any reports of noise to the local authority’s environmental health team, which was appropriate. However, we are unable to look at those and the environmental health teams handling of the further reports. Nor can we consider whether the neighbour breached the NAN. This aspect is better suited for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We will, however, look at the action the local authority took in its role of a social landlord.

What we can investigate

Noise and ASB

The resident reported noise on 25 May 2024. The landlord appropriately referred the noise to the local authority’s environmental health team. They attended but found no ongoing noise. It then wrote to the neighbour to remind them of their responsibilities and actions the local authority could take if they breached the NAN. On 24 June 2024, the landlord said to the resident its noise and nuisance team was investigating. It asked the resident to report incidents directly to them so they could follow up. This was an appropriate action.
However, the landlord did not fully acknowledge that the resident also reported ASB and threatening behaviour from a neighbour. At least not until he told it that he had reported incidents to the police. On 18 June 2024, the resident reported an aggressive incident at a bus stop. He told the landlord he reported the incident to the police. The landlord did not show it contacted the police before responding to the transfer request on 25 July 2024, which was inappropriate. This also forms part of its failings around the management transfer which we discuss below.
On 6 August 2024, the resident sent a video showing loud music and shouting to support his transfer application. The landlord has not shown that it reviewed the video or acted. The landlord had worked with the police earlier in August 2024, and this aligned with its ASB policy. It however did not investigate the resident’s ASB concerns properly, act promptly and review the evidence he provided. This was despite its published guidance requiring responses to noise or ASB reports.
The landlord’s later complaint response wrongly said the resident made no reports after June 2024. The resident’s evidence shows that he reported loud music at 4am on 3 December 2024. There was also further contact with the police in August 2024 and shortly after. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. It further contradicts the landlord’s records which show no further noise reports until 29 April 2025, when the resident escalated his concerns.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 defines ASB as behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to others. Given the resident’s descriptions, the landlord should have assessed whether the neighbours’ behaviour met that definition.
The landlord did not follow key parts of its ASB policy. It did not complete risk assessments or create an action plan. There were multiple opportunities for it to do so. It has not shown that it investigated all concerns independently. Taking these steps was especially important because the resident reported threats to harm more than once. It also had evidence following an information request to the police which supported the resident’s position. A third party witness also raised similar concerns. It did not act quickly enough to verify the resident’s allegations.
The landlord did not interview the resident or try to identify the witness who reported the threat. It could have asked the police for details of the third party or ask if the report was anonymous. It did not investigate despite clear policy requirements. The third party reported the incident to the police on 17 March 2024. The resident told the landlord about the police report on 30 September 2024. Its policy requires wider investigation, including contacting potential witnesses, which it failed to do.
This was in addition to making enquiries with any relevant local authority departments or partner agencies such as the police. Given the third party reports, the landlord should have agreed an action plan and ensured it was understanding and managing the situation between the neighbours. The failure to do so was inappropriate and lacked customer focus.
We note that the resident raised concerns about a breach of confidentiality. This was because he believed the landlord told his neighbour about his attempts to move. However, we have seen no evidence of this. Sometimes when landlords look to obtain evidence from alleged perpetrators, they need to discuss the concerns with them. Discussing the issues with the neighbour reported by the resident or sending any warnings was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
We understand that its policy says it must first ensure that there is sufficient evidence to support any allegations made. We cannot see that the landlord tried to gather evidence to support the resident’s position. Furthermore, as explained above it did not review the ones provided by the resident and this was inappropriate.
We have also seen evidence that the resident shared a cloud based storage link on 7 June 2024 with the landlord. He shared it again several times in 2024 and 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the link. The link held the resident’s evidence about his concerns with his neighbours. In September 2025, it said it could not access it, 15 months after he initially provided the link. This shows it did not review all available evidence to investigate the resident’s concerns which was not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s policy says it deals with most ASB cases under civil law. It must show an incident was more likely than not to have happened. The third party’s report supported the resident’s concerns and should have prompted a risk assessment and potential action plan. However, the landlord relied fully on the police decisions. The police must show that the issue occurred beyond reasonable doubt before acting. This was reasonable in relation to its decision about any immediate risk. It was however inappropriate to solely rely on this about the overall ASB reports.
The landlord said on 12 November 2024 that there was nothing to substantiate the resident’s accusations. It explained the police would have dealt with any criminal threats, and it would have acted. As there was nothing to act on it closed the case. This was inappropriate to do without further investigation. The evidence shows a witness reported a threat of potential serious harm to the resident. As such the landlord should have taken far more consideration of this. Its actions appeared dismissive and were unreasonable.
We spoke with the resident on 30 January 2026, and he said the issues continued. He explained that the landlord had taken no action. He also said the police had issued new ASB notices to his neighbours. He told us that he did not feel safe in the property. We cannot see that the landlord ever considered the impact of the situation on his enjoyment of the property, or his wellbeing. This is inappropriate and shows a lack of customer focus or empathy to his situation and concerns.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy, investigate the resident’s concerns or review his evidence. It also did not act on available evidence and fully assess the risk to the resident and consider his vulnerabilities. It made no attempt to acknowledge any failures or put things right. As such, it missed an opportunity to take learning.

Complaint	The resident’s management transfer application
Finding	Maladministration

What we cannot consider

The resident explained to us that he wanted the landlord to move him from the property. He said that there had been a threat to his life. We cannot decide whether there has been a threat to a resident’s life. Nor can we tell a landlord to move a resident under a management transfer. We can however consider whether the landlord took enough consideration of all the evidence in reaching its decision.

What we can consider

The landlord did not provide the management transfer policy in place when the resident applied. It provided us with its 2025 policy. The landlord explained that it considers a management transfer under medical grounds, where there is a threat to life or limb, or issues with the property affecting safety or habitability.
The timeline of the resident’s management transfer applications was unclear. The evidence shows that he applied on 16 July 2024. The landlord rejected his application on 29 July 2024. He appealed on 2 and 3 August 2024. The landlord said internally on 12 November 2024 it was unsure why the resident asked for an appeal. This was because it said there was no formal transfer request. It said it could provide the information it had received to a panel but believed the outcome would be the same. We however cannot see that it provided him with a response to his appeal.
The landlord provided a response on 17 December 2024 where it declined the resident’s transfer request. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident submitted a new management transfer request, or if he did at any point. The landlord’s evidence suggests he waited for the outcome of the appeal against the initial refusal from July 2024. It however provided him with a fresh decision holding new appeal rights. He asked for another appeal on 20 December 2024.
To support his applications, the resident provided the landlord with medical evidence. The evidence did not directly say he needed to move because of the situation. The landlord therefore reasonably decided not to approve a transfer on medical grounds.
The resident also relied on his noise concerns to support his application. However, the landlord’s policy does not explicitly explain whether it treats excess noise as ASB. It said in its response that noise did not meet the transfer criteria. The landlord should have explained whether it treats noise separately and therefore does not consider it under ASB for management transfer decisions. However, it did not do so and this was not appropriate.
The resident raised concerns with his property as a reason for his application. He reported a buzzing noise from an air vent. This caused him Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms, as it reminded him of his radiotherapy treatment. The landlord however found that the noise fell within normal working levels when it initially inspected. It said it was designed to reduce moisture in the bathroom to prevent condensation. He also raised concerns about asbestos removal in his property. He told us that the landlord did not tell him about cracked floor tiles which contained asbestos when he moved into the property.
The resident explained to the landlord that this raised concerns due to his already compromised health. The landlord removed the tiles and completed 2 air purity tests, both showed no risk from the fibres. Based on this the landlord refused his application based on both medical and property concerns. The landlord reasonably relied on the findings of its contractor, air testing results, and medical evidence.
The landlord did not show that it considered the resident’s individual circumstances. He explained that the sound of buzzing may have contributed to a deterioration in his mental health. It also did not show that it considered the overall impact of the situation on the resident’s vulnerabilities and if this affected its decision at all. This was especially the case with the noise and ASB concerns. These saw a potential escalation in the situation between the parties. While this may not have changed its decision, it would have been reasonable for it to show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident raised his concerns again in his appeal around daily ASB, life threats, bullying, harassment, and passive aggressive actions from his neighbour. He attended a meeting with the landlord and the police on 30 August 2024. He then told the landlord about the threats to stab him in the neck, reported by a third party about his neighbours.
The landlord told the resident’s MP on 14 October 2024 that it had asked the police for more information and chased the request. The police however confirmed on 5 November 2024 that they had heard nothing from the landlord since 30 August 2024. This evidences further delays in the management transfer decision due to the landlord’s inappropriate communication.
In an internal discussion on 11 November 2024, the landlord said the police had spoken to the neighbour. They found no evidence to support the threats. The police had also marked the reports as no further action necessary. It decided that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer in November 2024. We consider the landlord should have taken further action in relation to the ASB. It also should have followed its policy. It was however entitled to rely on the police’s findings of no immediate risk.
The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates between September and December 2024. He also chased responses around its evidence gathering from the police. This raises concerns with the landlord’s communication and prompt response to the management move request. Its evidence gathering considerably delayed its decision making and review of evidence. It also did not clearly communicate the delays with the resident. This was inappropriate.
We have seen no evidence that it provided him with a response to his appeal as explained above until 17 December 2024. This is a delay of over 4 months (from August 2024, when he raised the appeal) and was inappropriate.

Complaint	The removal of asbestos containing materials from the property
Finding	No maladministration

The resident said the landlord did not tell him that the crack floor tiles were Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMS). It is unclear to us if the landlord was aware that there were cracks in the tiles prior to the resident’s reports. However, once it became aware, it decided to remove the tiles. This was a reasonable approach to take. It also completed air purity tests to ensure that there was no dangerous exposure. The tests showed that the results were normal. This was a suitable approach for the landlord to have taken around the situation.

Complaint	A buzzing noise from the vents
Finding	Maladministration

The resident explained to the landlord that there was a buzzing noise within the vents of the property. He explained that this affected his mental health as it reminded him of his radiotherapy treatment. He reported his concerns in April 2024 to the landlord. In its complaint response, the landlord explained it inspected the vent on 19 June 2024, about 3 months later. We have seen no evidence that it attended prior to this to resolve the situation. We have also seen no explanation for this delay. The delay and lack of explanation was inappropriate.
The landlord said it found the fan working within expected “sound levels” when it attended in June 2024. It said that it had scheduled a comprehensive test on 8 July 2024 to assess the fan thoroughly. The landlord did not provide the outcome of the assessment within the information provided to us. It also did not respond when we requested further information on 3 February 2026.
The resident told us the landlord took no action to address the issue. The landlord explained in its complaint response that, under its policy, fans stay on standby to reduce moisture and prevent damp or mould. It said should it find the fan to be within normal operation parameters, it may not be able to take much action. The resident told the landlord within the escalation of his complaint, that he believed that the buzzing came from his neighbour’s property. We cannot see that the landlord took any action to investigate this and this was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord has not shown that it followed up its commitment to complete a comprehensive test in July 2024. It has not shown that it investigated the resident’s concerns that the buzzing noise came from his neighbour’s property. If it chose not to meet the commitment or investigate further, it did not explain why it did not do so. This was despite the resident’s explanation of the effects on his mental health, and this was inappropriate. The evidence suggests the issue remained outstanding following its inspection on 18 June 2024 until the time of writing. This is a period of 20 months, this was unreasonable.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its complaints policy. We found a copy on its website dated 2023. The policy is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (The Code). The policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgment, and issue a stage 2 response within 30 working days. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Code however explains that it has revised its stage 2 response timeframe to 20 working days. However, its complaint definition aligns with the Code.
The evidence shows the resident first expressed dissatisfaction on 7 June 2024 about ASB, noise, and a buzzing noise in the property. He also raised the suitability of the property which we have not considered. He explained he had previously raised the issues of ASB with the landlord. The landlord explained it had raised his ASB concerns with its ASB team. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining its position and referring the resident’s ASB concerns to its noise and ASB team. It however did not recognise the June 2024 complaint. This caused delays and prevented it from logging the issue correctly given the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response of his reports.
The resident then expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s housing management decisions on 7 February 2025. He tried to escalate his complaint on 29 April 2025. However, because the landlord missed both expressions of dissatisfaction, it treated the issues as a stage 1 complaint.
On 1 May 2025, the landlord said there was no complaint to escalate. It then took a further 7 working days on 13 May 2025 to acknowledge the complaint after the resident expressed his dissatisfaction again. This was outside the timeframes of its policy. Additionally, on 7 May 2025 it asked him for a reference for his complaint, despite previously explaining he did not have a complaint to escalate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2025. This was over 11 months from the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction. It was 4 months since he raised concerns about the response to his management move request and the further ASB reports. Additionally, this was outside of its 10 working days timeframes from the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord’s response at stage 1 caused considerable delays and was not in line with its policy or the Code. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident around its misunderstanding and failure to raise the complaint in time. While this was a positive step, it did not provide any further remedy to recognise the impact on the resident or took any learning. It also explained that the last noise and ASB concerns it received from the resident were in June 2024. The landlord’s statement was inaccurate as the evidence shows he made further reports of noise and ASB.
The resident escalated his complaint the on 29 May 2025. Due to several delays in the landlord’s response, the resident requested our assistance. Following our repeated requests for response, we issued the landlord with a CHFO on 17 October 2025. We accepted the case for investigation prior to exhausting the landlord’s process. This was due to its failure to issue a stage 2 response.
The landlord provided us with a “draft stage 2” response in December 2025, but we have seen no evidence it issued this to the resident. We asked the landlord about this, in January 2026 but it provided no response. Based on the evidence, the landlord failed to follow its policy and provide a 2 stage complaint process. The resident also confirmed to us in January 2026 that he did not receive a stage 2 response. This was a significant failure in addition to the already delayed stage 1 response.
The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident. It did not keep him updated around the delays in its response. It was not until the resident approached us that it provided him with an update. The landlord’s actions show a lack of customer focus and were unreasonable.
The landlord missed 2 expressions of dissatisfaction, one in June 2024, and the other in February 2025 which caused a delay of over 11 months at stage 1. The complaints process also remained incomplete as it did not issue a final response. We concluded that the landlord had sufficient opportunity to respond to all the resident’s concerns and our communication, but it has not done so. As such we continued with our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to review this case to identify its failings and how it can better its handling and response to such issues in the future.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it understands and can identify:
1. Expressions of dissatisfaction and when to act on them.
2. Its responsibilities under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and Code.
The landlord should make sure that it carefully considers all the evidence available when making decisions. It should also consider the implications of the evidence and explain why it has not relied on specific evidence. For example, in this case, its failure to show it fully considered the third party police report which named a threat to the resident and the resident further submission of evidence in the link he provided.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping in this instance was poor. Its evidence did not include several of the resident’s reports. We were only able to find some of these due to the resident’s records. It needs to ensure that it keeps accurate records of all reports to inform and evidence its action.
The landlord also needs to ensure it can show through its records that it appropriately investigated resident’s concerns. Although the landlord said it would raise the issue with its ASB team, it has provided no evidence that it logged the concerns.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor. It was often reactive to the resident or our requests. It needs to ensure it proactively updates resident around its actions.