London Borough of Lambeth (202519376)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground-floor flat. He has depression and anxiety. In June 2025, he told the landlord that his neighbour was causing ongoing noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB), and this was affecting his health.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.             The resident’s reports of ASB.

b.             The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

a.             The resident’s reports of ASB.

b.             The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord acted quickly when the resident reported ASB. It also made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to discuss his reports. While there were some process gaps, they did not cause detriment.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord treated the resident’s initial contact as a service request, which was reasonable. After our intervention, it issued its formal responses within appropriate timescales.

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.

Recommendation

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.

What we’ve not investigated

6. The resident said the landlord had not complied with orders we made in a previous determination about noise nuisance in June 2023. We check compliance before we close a case. As such, we will not revisit matters that we have already decided.

What we’ve investigated

7. After the resident reported ASB, the landlord acted quickly. Within a few days, it wrote to him to confirm it had sent the neighbour a warning letter. It also enclosed diary sheets and gave information about mediation. This was a fair, victim-centred response and the landlord used the tools available to it in line with its ASB policy.
8. The landlord also tried to contact the resident by email and phone to discuss the reports. This would have allowed it to complete a risk assessment and, if needed, start its ASB process. In its final complaint response, it also shared copies of its emails and call logs with the resident. This was reasonable because the resident disputed that the landlord had made the calls and sent the emails it said it had.
9. On 1 July 2025, the resident sent the landlord a copy of his June 2025 complaint. The evidence shows he did not send it to a landlord email address. The landlord’s response was therefore accurate when it said it had not received this email.
10. The resident returned the diary sheets by special delivery on 9 July 2025, which we have seen were delivered. The landlord said it had no record of receiving them, and we highlight this as a learning point. In any case, this did not cause clear detriment. The resident did not contact the landlord again until November 2025, around 4 months later, when he asked it to escalate the complaint. In its final response, the landlord also offered other ways to return the diary sheets, including collecting from him. This showed a willingness to review any evidence.
11. By the time the resident contacted the landlord again, it had closed the case. Closing the case was in line with its policy, but we have not seen evidence that it told the resident first, as the policy requires. A warning would have given the resident a chance to set out his position and provide more evidence. It would also have shown transparency and accountability. We also highlight this as a learning point.
12. The landlord made some process errors, but overall, it acted reasonably. It responded quickly in June 2025, warned the neighbour, made reasonable efforts to contact the resident and shared safeguarding options. This showed it considered the resident’s circumstances.
13. The resident has recently told us the ASB and noise is ongoing. For that reason, we recommend that the landlord contact the resident and respond to his concerns in line with its policy and procedure.

14. The resident made a formal complaint on 22 June 2025. The landlord did not log it as a complaint under its complaints process. Instead, it treated the issue as a service request. This was appropriate because the resident complained about the neighbour’s behaviour, not specifically about the landlord’s actions, and there was no evidence of any previous reports within the last 18 months. Its policy explains that a service request is a request for the landlord to take action, which is different from a complaint. This approach also aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
15. We then asked the landlord to respond through its formal complaints process. It did so within the deadline we set. The resident then escalated the complaint. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the escalation, but it issued its stage 2 response within 25 working days. This met the timescales in its policy and the Code. The landlord’s final response also reasonably addressed the key areas of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord should review how it logs and tracks incoming post and evidence so it can confirm what it has received and when.

Communication

17. When managing ASB cases the landlord should make sure it tells residents before it closes a case, in line with its policy. This will increase accountability and transparency.