London Borough of Hounslow (202309773)

Decision
Case ID	202309773
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a property which forms part of a modern, compact development of other houses. The close has public through access at both ends. One end is accessible to vehicles, and the other connects to a main road for pedestrian access only, with bollards. The resident reported nuisance caused from members of the public cutting through the close. She asked the landlord to install a security gate to improve safety measures.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and a request to install a security gate.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and a request to install a security gate.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and a request to install a security gate.

5. The landlord did not consistently follow its ASB policy, mainly due to poor communication and incomplete record‑keeping. After the landlord proposed a security gate in March 2022, it did not provide any further updates to residents. Despite the resident raising these concerns, the landlord did not acknowledge any shortcomings in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints that she raised in June 2023. The landlord only addressed the complaint following our intervention, which meant there was a seven-month delay issuing a stage 1 response. The landlord failed to address this delay in its internal complaint process.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 May 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200 consisting of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication relating to the request for a security gate. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid	No later than 26 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord to write to all residents. The landlord to update all residents on the proposal (of 31 March 2022) ensuring its information about its current position is accurate.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 March 2022	The landlord wrote to residents of the close to propose installing a fence and security gate with either a key-operated or digital locking system. It said this was to prevent disturbance from members of the public passing through the estate. It asked residents to indicate their preferred option from the three following choices: Entrance to be left open as it is. Exit blocked at certain times of the day and night. Exit blocked off to non-residents.
2 – 19 June 2023	On 2 June 2023, the resident submitted an online complaint to the landlord. She said residents had not received any update following the landlord’s proposal letter of 31 March 2022. The resident stated that crime had increased in the area. She asked the landlord to install the security gate as it previously suggested. The resident chased this on 19 June 2023 by submitting a further complaint form to the landlord.
21 June 2023	The resident raised the same concerns with the landlord. She also raised concerns about the safety of the young children living in the close and said she and the other residents believed installing the security gate would prevent further issues.
November 2023 to January 2024	Between November 2023 and January 2024, the resident liaised with us because she had not received a formal written complaint response from the landlord. She said the landlord had only made verbal contact. On 17 January 2024, we contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
24 January 2024	In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it had treated issues reported as a service request rather than a complaint and managed it appropriately. The landlord set out its actions it had taken following the reports. It confirmed that although not obliged to, it installed a gate measuring 1 metre height to help reduce ASB and public cut-through use.
5 February 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the landlord had not acknowledged the complaint she submitted on 2 June 2023. The resident repeated her request for a taller gate with a security fob or key locking system.
5 March 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response did not change the outcome reached at stage 1. It reiterated the actions it had taken to prevent ASB. It also provided its reasons why it had declined the request for fob-controlled access.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She said she and her neighbours wanted the security gate to be installed to prevent further ASB and for the safety of the children.

 

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	Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and a request to install a security gate.
Finding	Service failure

7. The landlord must investigate the reports of ASB in line with its policies, which set out how it assesses reports and the actions it can take. The landlord can investigate and manage housing‑related ASB where it can exercise landlord control over tenants, leaseholders, or their visitors. Available actions include non-legal and legal measures such as advice, warnings, and enforcement.
8. Where behaviour or nuisance involves members of the public or criminal activity, the landlord cannot exerciselandlord control. In these cases, it should refer any relevant matters to the police or community safety teams and consider issues under its estate-management.
9. In its letter sent to residents on 31 March 2022, the landlord said it was aware of disturbance caused by people walking through the estate. It was reasonable for the landlord to propose installing a fence with a gate and either a key or digital locking device, to help mitigate further issues. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact residents after issuing this letter. This lack of communication was a significant failure which contributed to the resident making her complaint on 2 June 2023. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to the complaint (which we have referred to below in our assessment of the complaint handling).
10. The resident called the landlord on 21 June 2023 and reported nuisance of children playing ball games. She also emailed the landlord that day and expressed concerns of her and the other residents not having contact details of their Tenancy Officer (TO). The resident listed the following incidents that she said had been reported to the police:
    1. Non-resident vans being parked, the owner coming and going in the middle of the night, possibly armed.
    2. Mopeds leaving through the pedestrian footpath, potentially causing an accident.
    3. Drug dealing.
    4. People urinating in public.
    5. Vandalism.
    6. Theft from a resident’s car.
11. The landlord took appropriate action during early July 2023 to respond to the public disturbances which the resident said had been reported to the police, and the ball game issues. The Estate Improvement Officer (EIO) contacted and visited the resident to discuss her concerns. The EIO and TO also visited other resident’s living in the close to discuss any issues they may have been experiencing. The landlord hand delivered a letter to each of the 16 residents. The letter reminded residents of their tenancy conditions and explained how to report any suspicious activities to the police or any ASB concerns to the landlord’s enforcement team. The landlord did not receive further reports of ASB.
12. As a result of the visits, the landlord planned to install a 1 metre fence and gate at the pedestrian access point. It also recorded that it had made a referral to the enforcement team to carry out patrols in the area. The landlord told us that patrols found no issues, but the absence of records of the patrols, means we could not verify this.
13. The landlord’s responses reflected an appropriate estate management approach rather than housing‑related ASB enforcement. This was reasonable and proportionate, given most the incidents related to alleged criminal or nuisance behaviour by non‑residents, that had been reported to the police. The police were the appropriate authority to investigate and take enforcement action.
14. In January 2024, the landlord installedthe 1-metre-high metal fence and gate. The resident told us she and other residents intervened and stopped the contractorfitting a fire lock to the gate at the time. She said the residents had not been told nor agreed to a permanent lock. This shows poor communication from the landlord. The resident said fitting a permanent lock would have caused inconvenience to allresidents, as they would not have been able to access the close from the main road. The gate was left unlockable and accessible to the public.
15. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain why it declined to install a higher, fob-controlled security gate. It explained it was not obliged to install a gate and that planning approval in 2018 required the close to remain publicly accessible. The landlord said the gate was installed only as a deterrent and would always remain open (which conflicted with the resident’s account about a fire lock). It also set out planning and highway restrictions that limited a fob-access gate, and that it was not possible by law for the gate to exceed 1 metre in height. However, it was not reasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge its March 2022 proposal, which had evidently raised residents’ expectations.
16. The landlord also explained that the close was exclusive and parking was unallocated and not included in tenancies. It said this meant there were no restrictions on non-residents parking there, and it was appropriate that the landlord could not take further action on this point. It also advised that residents could petition for parking controls, and it provided information on the process and permit costs.
17. We recognise that disturbance or potential ASB can cause safety concern as the resident described. However, the landlord cannot directly prevent ASB or control actions of third parties. It can only respond to and act on reports received, in line with its policy. After the landlord reminded residents on how to report ASB in July 2023, then again in its complaint responses in January and March 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord received any reports from the resident.
18. We found the landlord’s records were inadequate because it did not keep notes of inspection visits or patrols. The landlord also held no records of police involvement and said it was unaware of any reports to the police. Given the resident’s complaints said she and other residents repeatedly reported issues to the police, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider engaging with the police, as its policy suggests.
19. It was poor that the landlord did not communicate with residents after proposing a security gate on 31 March 2022. The landlord did not progress theproposal, which unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s lack of follow-up meant residents did not understand whether the proposal remained under consideration or withdrawn.Although the resident’s complaint responses explained the landlord’s stance and why it was unable to install the security gate, we do not know if other residents have been made aware of the updated position. We have therefore recommended that the landlord writes to all affected residents to correct its earlier misleading information about the installation of a security gate with a lockable system.
20. We recognise that the landlord’s poor communication relating to the security gate caused avoidable inconvenience. The resident spent unnecessary time seeking resolution for her and other residents. To recognise this, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation. This aligns with our compensation guidance for similar cases where the service shortcomings caused inconvenience and disappointment.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
22. The resident provided us with evidence of her online complaints being submitted to the landlord on 2 and 19 June 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to these. In a further email of 21 June 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the same issues. Despite this, the landlord did not log the matter as a complaint or provide a response. This amounted to poor customer service and complaint handling.
23. The landlord only responded to the complaint following our intervention. The resident should not have required our involvement to receive a response. In addition, when the landlord did reply, it did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concern that it had failed to progress its proposal as set out in its letter of 31 March 2022.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in January 2024. This represented an unreasonable delay of over seven months from when the resident first raised her complaint. Although a sooner response may not have changed the complaint outcome, we acknowledge the frustration and inconvenience the delay caused to the resident. It is also of concern that the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in its complaint responses.
25. To recognise the complaint handling failures, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount aligns with our compensation guidance where poor complaint handling has had an adverse effect on the resident, and the landlord has not acknowledged its failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord did not record sufficient detail which prevented us from carrying out a robust investigation. There was a lack of records relating to the patrols that the landlord said it carried out. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. The landlord should also strengthen its processes for keeping accurate records and providing clear, timely communication to residents about responsibility and next steps. The spotlight report also provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving its information management practice

Communication and Estate Management

27. This case highlights the importance of clear and proactive communication between estate management services and residents where public disturbance or potential ASB affects an estate. Even where issues are not suitable for formal housing ASB action, landlords should keep residents informed about how concerns are being managed, including any estate management measures, partnership working, or limitations on available powers. Providing regular updates on whether actions are planned, progressing, or cannot be taken helps manage expectations and reassures residents that concerns are being taken seriously.

Complaint handling

28. Landlords should ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction are recognised, logged, and responded to in line with their complaints process. Clear communication about what actions have been taken and what cannot be progressed is essential to manage expectations and maintain trust. Failure to do so risks residents feeling ignored and undermines confidence in the landlord’s handling of concerns.