London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202524531)

Decision
Case ID	202524531
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

The resident lives with her husband and daughter in a 2-bed flat. The resident has raised complaints about alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour since December 2023. In the time before this complaint the neighbour had received a conditional discharge at court for harassment and was the subject of both a Community Protection Warning (CPW), and a Community Protection Notice (CPN). The resident raised a formal complaint about alleged ASB that occurred on 19 and 25 June 2025 and continued to report further ASB incidents in July, September and October 2025 and January 2026. The resident told us that incidents continued at the time of this investigation and that she was actively seeking a management move.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of ASB

The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s ASB reports by contacting and visiting the neighbour, requiring removal of items, issuing warnings, explaining its actions, and involving other functions within the local authority to address safety concerns. It reasonably assessed that the incidents did not meet the legal threshold to enforce the CPN and communicated this clearly to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as it issued its stage 1 complaint response late and did not clearly evidence that it acknowledged the complaint. Confusion in handling the merged complaints contributed to delay and required the resident to repeatedly chase for updates. Although the landlord apologised and offered appropriate compensation, it failed to show learning or service improvement to prevent recurrence.

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	Learning order The landlord must undertake a case review to determine: The root causes of the confusion and delays in handling the resident’s stage 1 complaints. The root causes of the poor communication with the resident during the stage 1 complaint, including its complaint acknowledgements and responses to her correspondence. What action it can take to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues in future. This may include policy or process changes, staff training or other actions. How it will implement these changes within a reasonable period of time.	No later than 10 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Learning order

The landlord must undertake a case review to determine:

The root causes of the confusion and delays in handling the resident’s stage 1 complaints.
The root causes of the poor communication with the resident during the stage 1 complaint, including its complaint acknowledgements and responses to her correspondence.
What action it can take to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues in future. This may include policy or process changes, staff training or other actions.
How it will implement these changes within a reasonable period of time.

No later than

10 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should continue to support the resident with her management transfer to move to another property.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 June 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of 2 ASB incidents on 19 and 25 June, in which she said the neighbour had left items on the communal balcony, causing an obstruction and breaching the terms of the CPN. She said that the incidents had been “downplayed” and treated as routine rather than malicious acts. The resident requested a full investigation into the “repeated health and safety concerns”.
17 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, as she had not received a response from the landlord by its deadline.
30 July 2025	On or around this date, the resident complained about the handling of her case by the ASB officer responsible. The resident was particularly dissatisfied with the staff member’s communication.
6 August 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to both of the resident’s complaints. It did not uphold the complaint and said: It apologised for the late response. It attributed this to waiting for information from the ASB team and reviewing the resident’s second complaint. It offered £100 compensation for this. The ASB officer attended court on 25 June but met the resident later that day, accepted that items had been left in the hallway, and found insufficient evidence that the neighbour intended to obstruct access or cause harassment, alarm or distress. The behaviour did not meet the threshold for enforcement under the CPN, which required persistent and unreasonable conduct with a detrimental effect on the community. It contacted the neighbour, issued a warning letter, confirmed through a follow‑up visit on 26 June that all items had been removed.
8 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She objected to the landlord merging 2 complaints. She disputed the landlord’s categorisation of the recent incidents as “not malicious” or a “routine matter”. She did not feel the matter was being properly managed and sought clarity around the basis for the warnings issued previously and what action the landlord intended to take moving forward. She wanted to see correspondence that had been sent internally from the assistant director overseeing ASB and have a meeting with him. She had repeatedly contacted the landlord by email and phone and these had not been answered.
4 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint and said: It had previously taken a range of action to counter the ASB including criminal proceedings, a CPW and CPN and issuing a notice of seeking possession, in addition to warning letters, calls and meetings with the neighbour. It had also explained previously to the resident what steps would be needed to enforce the CPN. It had responded immediately to the resident’s concerns on 19 and 25 June, which resulted in the items being removed and a warning being issued. The incidents did not meet the criminal thresholds for enforcing the CPN, although it acknowledged the neighbour’s behaviour was unreasonable. A meeting with senior management was not required as no new incidents had been reported.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated the complaint to us on 5 September 2025. She said that the complaint responses had been delayed and had merged 2 complaints. She said the landlord’s communication had been poor and that it had not taken any meaningful action to address the “hazardous activity” by the neighbour. The resident was seeking a clear plan from the landlord to resolve the matter.

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 the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour
Finding	No maladministration

Given the previous criminal conviction and legal enforcement action taken against the neighbour prior to this complaint, it is not disputed that there has been longstanding ASB against the resident and her family in this case. Notwithstanding this, this investigation will only consider the events leading up to the incidents reported on 19 and 25 June 2025 and the subsequent complaints.
As part of her correspondence with the landlord, the resident submitted medical evidence which said that the situation was having an adverse impact on her family and her own mental health. While this is not disputed, we will not consider the medical impact as unlike the courts we are not qualified to make this judgement. We instead consider the wider distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, where appropriate.
The terms of the neighbour’s CPN prohibited him from placing items on the communal walkway or balcony. During the incidents on 19 and 25 June 2025, the resident reported that he had placed a mattress on the walkway and proceeded to wash it with a pressure washer. She said that he had intentionally splashed her with water and that the items were causing an obstruction which she felt was a health and safety risk.
In response to the first report on 19 June 2025, the evidence shows that the landlord called the neighbour on the same day and asked him to remove the items. The neighbour confirmed that he would remove them by the following day when the mattress way dry. The landlord also confirmed to the resident that it had done this the same day. This was a reasonable response to resolve the issue in a timely and effective way.
Following the second incident on 25 June 2025, the landlord:
1. Attended the property on the same day and instructed the neighbour to remove items, which he did. This was an appropriate and timely response by the landlord.
2. Explained to the resident, when she attended its office on 25 June 2025, what plan of action it intended to take regarding the neighbour.
3. Reviewed the resident’s reports and confirmed to her, on the same day, that this did not meet the legal threshold for enforcement of the CPN. Given that the landlord would have to meet the criminal standard for enforcement, this was a reasonable position, which it explained to the resident in a timely way.
4. Sent a warning letter to both the alleged perpetrator and their mother (who is the landlord’s tenant) regarding the repeated action. It was positive to note that both the alleged perpetrator and the tenant were issued warnings, to stress the significance of the incidents and to provide warnings regarding the tenancy.
5. Arranged for the local authority’s compliance team to attend the following day to ensure items had been removed and to investigate the resident’s concerns about health and safety. This was a timely and proactive response by the landlord to address the full range of concerns that the resident had raised.
6. Updated its ASB risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy.
During her complaint, the resident said that the landlord had taken the same action in both incidents and that she was dissatisfied with its lack of action to address the ASB, which she felt had been downplayed. This was particularly in the context of the longstanding ASB, which she said had been ongoing since December 2023. The resident also felt that the landlord should have been enforcing the CPN as it included a prohibition on the placing of items in the communal walkway.
Within both complaint responses the landlord outlined the actions it had taken to date and confirmed that it had assessed the incidents as not meeting the threshold needed to breach the CPN. On this basis, the landlord’s information and actions were timely in both events, and it took steps to explain these to the resident both at the time of the incidents and in its complaint responses, which was reasonable. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, seeking clarity around the CPN, the landlord could have considered seeking further legal advice around enforcement, however it was not obliged to do this, particularly as there is evidence this case had been discussed at assistant director level to agree the approach.
There is evidence that the resident chased the landlord for updates regarding actions it was taking, however in the majority of instances the landlord, particularly her ASB officer, replied within a reasonable time to the resident’s queries being raised and in line with the timescales shown in its ASB policy. Often this was the same day or within 24 hours.
Part of the redress that the resident was seeking was being moved to another property. While we understand this is currently being considered by the landlord, it should continue to support her management move request and provide her with an outcome as soon as possible. A recommendation has been made in respect of this above.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which is in line with the Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. The policy says that residents should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
The records show that the landlord:
1. Due to merging the complaint provided its stage 1 response on 6 August 2025 which was 28 working days from receipt of her initial complaint and 5 working days after receipt of her second stage 1 complaint.
2. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 15 August 2025, which was 5 working days after receipt. It then provided its stage 2 response 14 working days later.
This means that the landlord’s response to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint was delayed. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. It is unclear whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaints as there is evidence of her chasing for this. This is a failing, as the landlord must acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days to adhere to the Code.
The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had merged 2 of her initial complaints into one stage 1 complaint response. The Code requires landlords to incorporate complaints into 1 response where the matters raised are related. Given the overlapping nature of the complaints in this case, this was a reasonable action by the landlord.
Notwithstanding this, the evidence showed confusion in the landlord’s approach to the overlapping and merged complaint at stage 1, which ultimately contributed to the delays. There was also evidence of the resident repeatedly chasing for updates on the overdue complaints, before a response was sent at stage 1.
It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised for the delays in issuing its complaint responses and offered £100 compensation, which is in line with our compensation guidance. However, there has been no evidence provided that the landlord undertook any learning from the delays, or that it sought to explore its practices to avoid a reoccurrence. The landlord missed this opportunity to improve its wider services for tenants, and this was a failing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was generally good, including accurate and updated risk assessments and copies of all interactions. Within the case file submitted to us for investigation there was no record of the original second complaint made by the resident and this must be addressed for future complaints to ensure compliance with the Code.

Communication

The landlord’s response to the resident’s communication about her substantive issue was generally timely and informative, however the complaint process required the resident to chase on several occasions, without response or updates from the landlord and this must be addressed in future cases.