London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202307413)

Decision
Case ID	202307413
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Introductory Tenancy
Date	22 April 2026

Background

1. The tenancy began in June 2021. The resident started reporting noise issues soon after moving in. He asked the landlord to either move him to another property or complete soundproofing adaptations. He has autism and mental health conditions which noise worsens the symptoms of. He moved to a new property in April 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for adaptations.
   2. Request for a management transfer.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s request for adaptations

4. There were communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s adaptation requests. However, we were unable to fully determine the level of this due to a lack of evidence. The landlord apologised and offered to explore noise limiting works to a neighbouring property which was proportionate in the circumstances.

The handling of the resident’s management transfer request

5. The landlord followed its allocations policy and exceeded the provisions within the policy when it told the resident he could seek a mutual exchange. It spoke to partner agencies and communicated the resident’s housing options clearly.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord sent all complaint responses with its policy timescales and provided clear information within.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 November 2021	The resident emailed the landlord and several other organisations to express dissatisfaction with his property. He complained of noise having a significant impact on his mental health and autism.
10 November 2021	The resident complained about the landlord not offering to pay for carpeting as a soundproofing measure during a recent visit.
23 November 2021	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it offered to help him with an application for funds to use for essential items, like carpeting.
25 November 2021	The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The landlord gave him information about how to do this.
3 and 5 January 2022	The resident sent 2 emails to the landlord. He said it was homophobic and said he would go on a public hunger strike if it did not place him in a hotel due to the mental and physical effects of the noise in his property.
10 January 2022	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It provided a history of the reported issues since he moved in. It said it would ask its landlord services to consider changes in the downstairs property, including soft closure mechanisms on doors, to alleviate noise. It confirmed funding for carpets and other essential items remained open to him. It acknowledged missed opportunities to explain how the property modification process worked and apologised for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint and asked us to investigate.

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 handling of the resident’s request for adaptations
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The landlord has not provided full copies of the evidence in this case. However, it gave key dates and information in its complaint responses which we will rely upon in our assessment. However, the lack of records means it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why.
8. In July 2021, the resident asked the landlord to complete soundproofing works or move him to a more suitable property if it could not do so. It said it would send his request for adaptations to the relevant team. It has not provided evidence of doing so or of any outcomes. However, it visited him 2 weeks later to discuss his overall housing options.
9. The resident reported further noise issues in October 2021.He said the landlord ignored his request for reasonable adjustments at first before inspecting his windows. He said it had done nothing about the walls and taken no action since. It asked him to complete diary sheets to evidence the noise he was facing. He declined and the landlord explained the importance of gathering evidence for it to take further action.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained diary sheet evidence of noise issues would have supported it in completing adaptations. It said it would ask its relevant team to consider installing light switches and soft closures on doors in the property below the resident. It hoped this would alleviate noise. It apologised for missing opportunities to explain how the adaptation process worked.
11. After its response, the landlord continued to communicate with the resident about whether he would accept adaptations to his property. However, he declined saying he was fixated on the noise issue and needed to move. He left the property in April 2022.
12. In conclusion, it is unclear whether the landlord sent its July 2021 request for adaptations to its relevant team. It did not fully address this in its stage 2 response. It offered to help the resident apply for funds to help with essential items like carpeting in its complaint responses. It also apologised for missing opportunities to explain how its aids and adaptations process worked.
13. There were clear omissions in the landlord’s communication with the resident. However, due to the lack of evidence in this case, we cannot determine whether the landlord did or did not share his request for adaptations internally. It worked well with partner agencies to try and support the resident when he would not engage. Therefore, its apology and offer to consider works to the downstairs property were a proportionate remedy.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer
Finding	No maladministration

14. The resident requested a managed move within a month of moving into the property due to noise issues affecting his autism. The landlord explained this would not meet the grounds for a management transfer at the time. This was in line with its allocations policy which says it offers management transfers based on exceptional circumstances.
15. In August 2021, the landlord visited the resident to discuss his housing options in more detail. Based on the evidence available to the landlord at the time, it found no basis for offering a management transfer. This was fair and in line with its allocations policy.
16. The resident did not make further reports of noise until October 2021. He refused to complete noise diaries and in early November 2021 he asked the landlord to get him out of the property. He said there would be “serious issues” if it did not. It emailed him a few days later and explained his housing options including bidding, mutual exchange despite his usual ineligibility as an introductory tenant, and exploration of sheltered housing.
17. The landlord’s offer to help the resident with his housing options and extend the option of a mutual exchange to him was fair and supportive. It acknowledged the difficulty he was having in the property and explained it had been liaising with his mental health team. It reiterated this in its stage 1 complaint response.
18. Ahead of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it contacted the NHS. It suggested a professionals meeting to aid its approach to housing options as the resident would not engage. This showed good partnership working to find a resolution for the resident.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord gave a history of its response to the resident’s request for a management transfer. It explained the high threshold for management transfers, which require evidence to show how the noise affects the resident or that an immediate threat to life and limb exists. It acknowledged a social care report from October 2021 which said the property was unsuitable for the resident on sensory grounds due to autism. However, it explained this had not been qualified by a medical professional. This was fair and in line with its allocations policy which requires a formal referral application from partner agencies.
20. At the professionals meeting in January 2022, after the landlord’s complaint response, a mental health professional provided supporting evidence for rehousing. The landlord invited the resident to discuss the ongoing issues a few days later and he confirmed he would like to move. In February 2022, it approved a management transfer.
21. Overall, there were no failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. It followed its policy and exceeded the provisions of this when it gave him the choice of a mutual exchange despite having an introductory tenancy. It communicated the resident’s housing options clearly throughout the complaint period. Once it received the necessary medical information, it arranged a management transfer.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

22. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 2-stage complaints policy. It would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement. At stage 2, it would respond within 30 working days of acknowledgement. This was not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which asks landlords to respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement at stage 2.
23. However, the landlord has since published a new complaints policy which fully follows the requirements in the Code. Its definition of a complaint in both policies is compliant with the Code.
24. The landlord said it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 November 2021. It responded 9 working days later, within policy timescales.
25. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 November 2021. The landlord told him how to do this. Its policy did not outline any requirements for requesting escalation. Therefore, it should have escalated his complaint at this time of his request.
26. The resident raised further dissatisfaction on 3 and 5 January 2022. Despite not escalating his complaint clearly in November 2021, the landlord responded at stage 2 within its 30-working day policy timescale.
27. As the landlord responded within policy timescales at both stages and it has since published a new policy compliant with our Code, we find no failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not provide evidence relating to its internal communication which limited our investigation.

Communication

29. The landlord communicated well with the resident about his housing options but did not always communicate clearly about adaptations. However, it worked and communicated professionally with partner agencies to support the resident.