Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202513736)

Background

1. The resident has held the tenancy since 2015 and lives with her partner and child. Her partner has pursued the complaint with her consent. For ease of reference, we refer to both the resident and her partner as ‘the resident’. Household vulnerabilities are reported including neurodevelopment disorders and mental and physical health conditions. The resident has reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) since at least 2022. In May 2025, she asked the landlord for security adaptations.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. Overall, the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately. However, it did not complete action plans and risk assessments at appropriate points.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

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.

7. The resident has reported ASB since 2020. The landlord responded to a report of ASB in 2022 after someone threw a brick through the resident’s window. He said it narrowly missed his 2-year-old son. He believed the perpetrator was related to his neighbours. The landlord approved a MT for a one-bedroom property on 13 September 2022, as there was a serious risk to his welfare. It told him it may remove this priority status if he declined 2 alternative offers.
8. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation only considers the landlord’s handling of ASB since July 2024. It is not our role to establish the validity of the resident’s ASB reports. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of them. The landlord’s definition of ASB includes conduct that:
   1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
   2. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The ASB officer visited the resident on 24 July 2024. It appears this was prompted by a recent allegation that the neighbour slammed the door in the resident’s face while he was accepting a parcel. We do not know when he initially reported this incident. The officer noted the resident provided footage that included evidence of a knife, a machete, and that a brick was thrown through his window. He noted the household was vulnerable and there was enough evidence to take tenancy enforcement action.
10. The landlord’s ASB procedure defines urgent ASB situations as those with a risk of harm to complainants and vulnerabilities are identified. In such cases the ASB officer should risk assess the situation within one working day and agree an action plan with the complainant within 2 working days. While the ASB officer noted he intended to open an ASB case, collect the resident’s footage, obtain information from the police and consider tenancy enforcement action, we have not seen that he agreed these actions with the resident or completed a risk assessment at that time.
11. The ASB officer noted he intended to speak to all parties with a view to starting an anti-social behaviour agreement (ABA). ABAs are a behavioural contract between a person causing ASB and a landlord. They require the person to stop the ASB and warn of consequences if they do not. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will use ABAs to prevent ASB escalating. Therefore, this action was appropriate, given there was insufficient evidence to take tenancy enforcement action.
12. The ASB officer suggested the resident reconsidered his option to move and noted he did not want to accept a ‘like for like’ MT as he wanted a 2-bedroom property. We do not know when it was decided that the resident needed a 2-bedroom property. However, it is important to note that the council would have made the decision under its own allocation process.
13. We have not seen if the landlord notified the resident of its intended action or whether he agreed to it. A record of 16 August 2024 documented that the ASB officer emailed and visited the resident but we have not seen supporting records of the communications. However, the ASB officer noted the resident did not reply to his emails and would not co-operate. He said the resident had provided additional video footage but there was no sound and it was difficult to ascertain what had happened.
14. We have not seen whether the landlord progressed the ABA or any record of why it may not have been appropriate. However, the ASB officer emailed the neighbours around 28 August 2024 and explained the allegations made against them. He referred to video footage of 2 other incidents and said they potentially showed ASB towards the resident. The ASB officer asked that anyone leaving the neighbour’s flat refrained from any contact, directly or indirectly, with the resident. Again, this was appropriate. It was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which says it will use letters and warnings to prevent ASB escalating. It shows the ASB officer took the resident’s concerns seriously.
15. This action was successful for a period. There is no record of any further reports of ASB until 16 November 2024, when the resident reported that the smell from an unknown drug user was affecting the property. The landlord’s ASB policy defines such incidents as grade 3 ASB and it aims to contact the resident within 1 working day and agree an action plan in 5 working days. Again, we have not seen it did so in this case.
16. While records of 20 December 2024 document the resident was not engaging with the ASB officer, we have not seen evidence of their attempts to engage. This makes it difficult to assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable. We do know it asked the resident if he could identify the suspected drug user but it is unclear if he replied.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it wrote to all residents in the block about the issue. It has provided a copy of an undated letter. It told residents there had been reports of drug use which was negatively impacting residents’ quality of life. It warned that it would pursue enforcement action to address any breaches of tenancy and invited them to report ASB. This was appropriate. Additional reports may have helped the landlord identify those responsible and take appropriate action, if ASB continued. The warning was successful as records of February 2025 document the issue had stopped.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the ASB officer contacted the resident on 14 May 2025 as there had been no reports of ASB in the last 3 months. The contact record does not reference a discussion about case closure. However, any decision to close the ASB case at that time would have been appropriate, given there had been no further reports since the drug use discussed in February 2025. During the call the resident reported litter in his garden. He believed his neighbour was responsible but there was no evidence. We would not expect the landlord to act on an isolated incident of litter with no identifiable perpetrator.
19. However, shortly after, on 22 May 2025, the resident reported an incident the previous day. He said his neighbour was spying on him and looking into his garden. He said this made him feel uncomfortable and she continued to do it for a minute. He said he asked her why she was spying on him and she dismissed his concerns and said she was looking out of her window. He said her husband then approached the gate and shouted and insulted him causing significant distress to his son who started crying. He said his neighbour made discriminatory and derogatory remarks about his wife’s weight and asked the landlord to act.
20. As the resident reported his son was terrified by the incident, the landlord should have treated this as a grade 2 report of ASB. This is ASB with an intention to intimidate, frighten or harm a particular individual or family. The landlord aims to respond to such instances by contacting the complainant and completing a risk assessment within one working day. It then aims to agree an action plan within 5 working days of the initial report. Again, we have not seen the landlord risk assessed the case or agreed an action plan with the resident at that point.
21. The landlord’s ASB investigation procedure says it will review any relevant CCTV footage and contact the alleged perpetrator at the earliest and most appropriate opportunity. It aims to complete these actions within 10 working days.
22. It is positive the ASB officer contacted the resident and reviewed footage of the incident that day. He told the resident it was difficult to understand what was said without any audio. He said he could not see the female neighbour but did see a male neighbour when the resident left the garden. However, he said the footage appeared to show the resident was agitated and raising his arms (the resident disputes this). He agreed to update the resident after he spoke with the neighbour. He said there was insufficient evidence to evict the neighbour, but he could consider other tenancy enforcement action.
23. Shortly after, the resident asked the landlord to install a metal plate or protective barrier on the window previously targeted in 2022. He asked it to risk assess and investigate ASB. While the landlord was already investigating the issue it is unclear if the resident was aware of this or how long it would take. The landlord could have avoided this ambiguity if it provided a risk assessment and agreed an action plan.
24. That being said, we know the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. On 28 May 2025, the neighbourhood officer invited him to a face-to-face meeting on 4 June 2025 to agree the next steps. Again, we have not seen a record of this. The landlord’s stage 1 response says it took place with both parties. This was appropriate. There was no independent evidence to support the resident’s account of events, and the neighbour had since made counter allegations. It was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it will use mediation to resolve issues amicably if both parties are causing ASB.
25. The mediation was unsuccessful and the resident reported a further incident on 13 June 2025. He said he was receiving a delivery when his neighbour came out of her house and began to stare at him in an intense and deliberate manner. He agreed to provide supporting video footage. Notes show a different ASB officer reviewed the footage but it showed the neighbour only looked over as the resident was shouting at the delivery driver. The ASB officer noted the neighbour did not do anything wrong and looking at the resident was not harassment.
26. It is positive the landlord contacted the resident the next day and said it was considering its next steps. However, we have not seen that it agreed an action plan to manage his expectations as to how it planned to deal with ASB, or that it risk assessed the situation.
27. It is also positive the ASB officer and the ASB mental health worker met with the resident on 25 June 2025. Again, we have not seen a record of this meeting. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it explained its response to the incident of 21 May 2025 and why the CCTV footage did not support the resident’s account. Its advice that both parties should not communicate with each other was appropriate, given that mediation had failed and there were counter allegations.
28. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were appropriate. While it would have been helpful for the landlord to ask the resident why he believed officers were unprofessional and lacked respect at the outset, it did arrange for a manager to investigate these complaints and later met with the resident to discuss them. The landlord’s detailed history of the actions both officers took to address reports of ASB showed it was responsive to the resident’s reports and took his concerns seriously. We have not seen evidence to support the resident’s complaints about the conduct of both officers. However, the landlord apologised that the ASB officer referred the resident to another team to progress his request to move, acknowledging he could have done more to facilitate this himself.
29. The resident believes the landlord dismissed and ignored his evidence. However, records show multiple officers reviewed his evidence and, when appropriate, explained why it did not support his version of events.
30. The landlord’s records do not show when it closed ASB cases. However, while the resident believed it closed cases prematurely and put his family at risk, we have not seen evidence to support this. As we have explained, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB were appropriate. We know it was still actively investigating the reports at the time of the stage 2 response.
31. Records show the landlord later closed the case on 8 August 2025 as there were no recent issues. While the resident told us he continues to experience ASB, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of this. This is because it needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can raise a new complaint about the landlord’s response to ongoing reports of ASB and refer to us if he is dissatisfied with its final response.
32. The landlord’s decision that it could not justify spending public money on security adaptations was reasonable. While we understand the incident of 2022 caused significant distress to the family, there had been no further reports of criminal damage. We have not seen evidence of any threat to the security of the property or the safety of the resident’s family at the time of his request.
33. It was also positive that the stage 2 response explained why tenancy enforcement action was not appropriate and how the resident could progress his request to move. The landlord’s MT process says it should consider removing MT status if the resident is not rehoused within 3 months. It is positive it left this option open to the resident. It was nearly 3 years since it had approved the MT and there was no evidence of any significant threats to the resident’s welfare or that of his family.
34. However, while the complaint responses said the landlord adhered to its communication policy, we have not seen it agreed action plans at the appropriate points. While records show it did have a clear plan on how it intended to address ASB, it could have avoided frustrating the resident if it explained how it intended to deal with ASB and managed his expectations as to the options available. Although it promised to provide an action plan in its stage 1 response, we have not seen that it did so.
35. The provision of clear agreed action plans would have avoided time and trouble caused to the resident querying what action the landlord planned to take and him asking for updates. It could have also avoided distress and inconvenience caused by ambiguity as to how the landlord planned to deal with ASB. Further, the landlord took too long to tell the resident its decision on whether it could provide security adaptations and did not update him as to when he could expect a decision.
36. The landlord has not acknowledged these failures and has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for this service failure and pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of this. This is in line with our compensation guidance for service failures that cause distress and inconvenience but do not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
37. The resident said the issues impacted his family’s health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.

38. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. These response times are in line with the Code, albeit this says they must apply from when landlords acknowledge complaints and that they must do so within 5 working days.
39. The landlord acknowledged both complaints on the day it received them. Its stage 1 and stage 2 responses were issued within the time limits set out in its complaints policy and the Code. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

40. The landlord has a detailed ASB policy and accompanying procedure. These documents clearly define how it expects staff to prioritise ASB with details of when and how it expects them to deal with it.

Knowledge information management (KIM – record keeping)

41. The landlord provided enough information for us to provide a robust determination. However, it has not provided supporting evidence of significant events and meetings. Some communication records show only when the landlord modified records meaning we cannot say with certainty when some communications took place. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlords keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

42. While the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of ASB, we have not seen it provided agreed action plans on how it planned to manage them. Our centre for learning explains that landlords can avoid service failure when they clearly explain the limitations of their powers and when enforcement action may or may not be possible. It includes further information and advice on how they can do this.