London Borough of Waltham Forest (202307397)

Decision
Case ID	202307397
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Waltham Forest
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident has experienced recurring antisocial behaviour (ASB) for several years. In March 2023, an incident occurred between the resident and their neighbour’s visitor. The resident later raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to their ASB reports. Both the resident and their son contacted the landlord about these issues. For ease of readability, we have referred to them collectively as ‘the resident’ in this report.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

4. While the landlord’s initial response to the March 2023 incident was appropriate, there were repeated subsequent communication failures, delays in making a rehousing referral, and a lack of proportionate action in response to the resident’s noise reports. The records also show limited evidence of learning, as similar failures continued to occur. The remedy offered during the complaints procedure was not proportionate given the impact on the resident.

 

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the expectations of its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices. The landlord did not offer a proportionate remedy during its complaints procedure to put things right.

 

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 senior member of staff. 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 20 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord considers contacting the resident to offer updated support and discuss all available rehousing options, if it has not recently done so. This should help to ensure the resident is not missing out on potential opportunities and receives current, tailored advice to maximise their chances of securing a suitable move, should they still wish to move.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 September 2023	Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to raise a complaint about its response to the ASB reports. We asked the landlord to treat our contact as a stage 1 complaint, if it had not already done so, and to provide a response within 15 working days.
25 October 2023	As the resident told us they had not received a complaint response, we contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 1 November 2023.
31 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, in which it: acknowledged that it did not appropriately respond to reports of ASB in 2021. It said it would use this as a learning opportunity. said that its response to the ASB reported in 2023 was appropriate but accepted that there had been communication failures. awarded £150 in “recognition of the poor service” experienced.
1 November 2023	The resident told the landlord they would not accept the compensation. They said that “no amount of money” could recognise the distress they experienced due to the ASB. They also felt the stage 1 complaint response did not fully consider their circumstances.
9 January 2024	The resident had been in regular contact with us and said that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, but the landlord had not progressed their complaint further. We asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 30 January 2024.
6 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, in which it: acknowledged the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. explained that a referral for urgent rehousing had been declined because the risk had reduced after the neighbour moved. said the resident could contact it if they wished to discuss rehousing options. confirmed it was satisfied that the compensation offered at stage 1 was proportionate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because they felt that the landlord had not taken appropriate steps in its response to reports of ASB.

 

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 landlord’s response to reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

Response to the reports of ASB

6. Good record keeping is essential for landlords to maintain accountability and transparency. While it is positive that the landlord identified and awarded compensation for failures in its response to reports of ASB dating back to 2021, it has been unable to provide us with the evidence we need to fully investigate its response to the reports of ASB for the same period. The earliest evidence we have been provided is from March 2023. This significantly falls short of our record keeping expectations and reduces the effectiveness of our investigation.
7. Following an altercation in March 2023 between the resident and their neighbour’s visitor, the landlord contacted the resident promptly. It then completed a risk assessment and an action plan in a timely manner. The action plan included the landlord making weekly contact for the first month from the plan being agreed, issuing a warning to the neighbour and referring the case to the council’s Social Needs Panel (the Panel) to be considered for urgent rehousing. It also discussed the option of mediation, but the resident did not feel that this was appropriate. These actions were appropriate and aligned with the expectations of its ASB policy at that time.
8. Effective communication is essential because it can reduce the distress and inconvenience residents experience. Despite the communication commitment forming part of the action plan, the landlord did not follow through on it. We have identified only 1 telephone call in the month after the plan was completed on 17 March 2023. This reduced the effectiveness of the action plan, which likely caused the resident some distress.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy said that, where appropriate, it would take informal action such as interviewing the alleged perpetrator as part of attempts to resolve ASB without taking legal action. It interviewed the neighbour on 19 April 2023 and discussed the incident and the option of mediation. However, completing this interview more than a month after the incident indicates a delayed approach following the landlord’s initial prompt response. Because there is a lack of a clear audit trail, it is unclear why this was not completed sooner. The landlord also did not keep the resident updated at the time, which likely further contributed to the uncertainty around the landlord’s fulfilment of the actions set out within the action plan.
10. The resident also made several reports of noise from the neighbour’s property between March and May 2023. They completed a noise diary and used a recording app to document the noise. On 30 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would visit the neighbour’s property to “look at what other things” could be done to resolve the issue. This was reasonable, but the landlord’s records do not show whether this visit took place or what actions, if any, followed.
11. While a letter sent to the resident on 1 June 2023 says the landlord had issued a warning to the neighbour, we have not seen a copy of this. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether this warning also related to the noise reports or if it was issued within a reasonable time following the landlord agreeing to do so as part of the action plan. On 4 June 2023, the resident reported that the noise continued and said it was becoming difficult to manage. In the absence of clear evidence suggesting otherwise, we can only conclude that the landlord failed to take appropriate steps in response to the noise reports during this period, which likely further added to the resident’s distress.
12. On 21 June 2023, the resident reported a further incident in which an associate of the neighbour followed the resident home. The landlord reviewed the video evidence provided and said it did not show a tenancy breach or illegal behaviour it could act upon. We recognise that there were limitations in what the landlord could do in this instance. However, it would have been reasonable for it to speak with the resident about what other support might have been available. This could have been either directly from itself or third‑party agencies, given the added distress caused by the incident. By not doing this, the landlord missed an opportunity to show that it was taking a victim‑focused approach, as per the expectations of its ASB policy. This may have left the resident feeling unsupported at the time.
13. We welcome that the landlord contacted the police following the incident in March 2023 to gather more information about what happened and what the outcome of the police’s involvement was. This aligned with the landlord’s ASB policy’s expectation that it works with other agencies as part of responding to and resolving ASB. While this was reasonable, the landlord’s evidence does not clearly show when the police disclosure requests were specifically made. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether it did so within a reasonable timeframe of it becoming aware of the incident occurring. This further lack of detail falls short of our expectation that landlords maintain a clear audit trail of events.
14. By November 2023, the neighbour had moved away, and there had been no further ASB reported since before August 2023. On 28 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would close the ASB case and gave contact details for the new tenancy officer for the area should further ASB occur. This was reasonable, as there had been a sustained period with no further reports. It was also positive that the landlord made sure the resident had the correct contact details, as this meant they could contact the tenancy officer directly if needed in the future.

Associated rehousing referral

15. On 24 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that they felt unsafe living in the property because of the ASB. In line with the action plan, the landlord confirmed that a rehousing referral would be made for the household to be considered by the council’s Panel for an urgent move due to their circumstances. This showed that the landlord was taking the cumulative impact of the resident’s circumstances seriously. It also explained that a referral would not guarantee a move, which helped manage the resident’s expectations at an early stage and supported transparency.
16. The landlord has provided us with a referral form dated 27 March 2023, but the form appears incomplete and there is no evidence that it was submitted. Based on the records, we can only conclude that the referral was not made at that time. This likely caused an unreasonable delay in the agreed action being completed.
17. We can only investigate complaints about councils when they are acting as a landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in that capacity in its handling of the resident’s rehousing referral once submitted. Instead, it was exercising its broader statutory role in managing the housing register and allocating social housing. We therefore have no power to investigate the council’s decision on the resident’s rehousing referral or the delays in the decision being made. The resident may be able to raise this matter with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if they have not already done so. However, we have considered the landlord’s handling of making the referral and communication with the resident during the delays as part of its wider response to the reports of ASB.
18. A referral form was completed again on 1 August 2023, though it is unclear when it was submitted. The resident was not told when the referral was made, which may have further led them to feel uncertain about the action the landlord was taking. On 29 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that the Panel should have considered the referral that day, but it had been delayed until “more than likely” 26 September 2023. The landlord said it would highlight the “particular importance” of the case and ask for the referral to be heard sooner, it did not do this. However, this fell short of the commitment it made to the resident, which was unfair.
19. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not proactively keep the resident updated on the referral, especially given the delays already experienced. By not doing so, it missed opportunities to reduce the resident’s distress. On 4 October 2023 and 11 October 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update. This avoidably inconvenienced the resident and contributed to them feeling “fed up” and unheard.
20. The landlord responded on 11 October 2023 and confirmed that the Panel had been rescheduled for 31 October 2023. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s frustration, which indicates an additional missed opportunity to proactively take accountability and reduce the resident’s distress. It also did not highlight the urgency of the referral to the Panel as it said it would, which shows a lack of learning from failing to fulfil previous commitments. On 28 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that the referral had been declined, as the neighbour had since moved and the Panel decided that the risk threshold for a priority move had not been met.

Putting things right

21. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. The landlord’s total award of £150 aligns with what our guidance suggests may be appropriate where a failure has adversely affected a resident but has not resulted in a permanent impact. However, while the landlord acknowledged failures in its response to ASB reports in 2021 and communication around the rehousing referral in 2023, it did not show recognition for all the failures we have identified in this investigation. Therefore, this limits the extent to which the landlord’s compensation put things right. When ordering additional compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

22. When the resident made their complaint, the landlord had a published complaints policy that did not fully align with the expectations of the Code effective at the time. However, we note that the landlord has since revised its published complaints policy to bring it in line with the requirements of our current Code.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy did not require residents to use the word “complaint” for an issue to be treated as one. The records show several occasions when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to their ASB reports. These expressions met the policy definition of a complaint, yet the landlord did not treat them as such. The landlord also delayed in accepting the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 13 September 2023, despite our specific request that a complaint be opened. These missed opportunities to follow its complaints policy likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience, which the landlord did not fully recognise.
24. The landlord’s policy at the time provided that stage 1 responses would be provided in 20-working days. The landlord exceeded this and responded 35 working days after we contacted it with details of the resident’s complaint. On 1 November 2023, the resident told the landlord they would decline the compensation award because they did not consider it appropriate and felt the stage 1 response did not fully consider their circumstances.
25. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have treated this contact as an escalation to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It did not do so, which reflects a recurring failure in recognising when a complaint had been made. The resident experienced further inconvenience in asking us to intervene. The landlord issued this response on 6 February 2024. Overall, the complaint handling failures led to a protracted process that did not meet our expectations for effective complaint handling.
26. Our remedies guidance (referenced above) suggests that awards between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where the landlord has not fully acknowledged its complaint handling failings and has made no attempt to put things right. When deciding on what would be an appropriate amount of compensation in this case, we have considered the timeframe of the landlord’s delays and the distress and inconvenience this caused.

 

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident repeatedly fell short of expectations around effective communication. There were periods where there was a lack of communication and it also did not give sufficient due regard for the circumstances affecting the resident. Our spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect identified that sensitive and tailored communication can reduce distress experienced by residents. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the findings set out in our spotlight report.

Complaint handling

29. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.