London Borough of Hounslow (202531711)

Decision
Case ID	202531711
Decision type	Investigation
Council	London Borough of Hounslow
Council type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. She reported anti social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. She also told it she was vulnerable and wanted to move because she felt her home did not meet her needs. Around the same time she made a subject access request (SAR). She went on to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of these matters.
2. The resident’s landlord is a council. Her complaints involve its housing services and some of its other services. It will be referred to respectively in this report as ‘the landlord’ for its housing services and ‘the council’ for other services to make the difference clear.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
   2. The council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and SAR.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s ASB reports.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
6. We have not investigated the council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and SAR because they are outside of our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

7. Nothing in the evidence suggests the landlord considered the resident’s reports as anything other than ASB. It failed to treat the resident’s ASB reports in 2025 fully in line with its ASB policy. This included not completing a risk assessment or agreeing an action plan with her.

Council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and SAR

8. The council’s homelessness, independence and preventative service handles rehousing applications, including those made on medical grounds. Likewise the council’s data protection department handles SARs. Both departments are separate from the council’s function as a landlord. The resident complained that the council had not handled her application for rehousing or her SAR correctly.
9. As explained above, we can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions, not the council’s. That means we have no power to investigate the complaint about the rehousing or SAR.
10. The resident is advised, if she has not already done so, to refer her complaint about her rehousing application to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and her complaint about the SAR to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Council’s handling of the resident’s complaint

11. Both the council’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were issued outside the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It failed to acknowledge these delays in its response, however the delays, and impact, were minor.

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	Compensation order The council must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £200 for the failings identified in this determination relating to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 May 2026
2	ASB follow up The landlord must contact the resident by the due date stated and: Discuss any ongoing ASB issues, including noise, with the resident. Complete an ASB risk assessment with the resident. Follow up with written correspondence to the resident confirming if it considers the issues reported ASB or not. If it does consider it to be ASB it should provide a clear action plan. If it does not, it should explain why and signpost the resident to alternative services if applicable. The landlord must provide evidence of the above to us.	No later than 15 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 October 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. She said despite reporting issues about persistent noise issues with her upstairs neighbours it had failed to resolve the issue satisfactorily. The noise issues were impacting her health.
17 November 2025	The council issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had recently attempted to discuss the resident’s ASB concerns. It explained it had given her information on how to report noise and provide evidence, including diary sheets, in line with its ASB policy.
17 November 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She felt the council’s stage 1 response failed to cover all the points raised in her initial complaint. Regarding the ASB she felt the recent call with the council had been misrepresented and it had failed to acknowledge the previous 10 years’ worth of ASB reports she had made.
22 December 2025	The council issued its stage 2 response. It explained its complaints policy meant it would not consider events covering 10 years, and instead looked at events from December 2023 onwards. It maintained it had dealt with the resident’s 2025 reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the council’s response was incomplete and inaccurate. She wanted it to rehouse her to a property that met all her medical needs.

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 council is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Service failure

 What we did not investigate

12. When the resident referred her complaint to us she said she had been reporting the ASB issues to the council since 2017. She also said the issues were still ongoing.
13. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Also, our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the council as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. Because of that this investigation has not considered events outside the months leading up to the resident’s complaint to the council in October 2025, or after its final complaint response in December 2025.
14. The resident also told us the landlord’s inaction regarding the ASB issue has impacted her mental health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident has told us that the outcome she is seeking from our investigation is for the landlord to move her. We have no remit to order the landlord to do that. Nonetheless, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience, or take other action, which is what this report considers.

What we investigated

16. In her complaint the resident said she had experienced excessive noise from her upstairs neighbours. She stated the neighbours, who were leaseholders, had installed wooden flooring without adequate underlay, which worsened the noise. She explained this had a significant impact due to her medical conditions, which included a heightened sensitivity to noise. She said the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve the issue.
17. The landlord explained its complaints policy limited its response to events from December 2023 onwards and that it would not consider earlier issues. It said it handled the resident’s noise reports in line with its ASB policy. It explained a staff member contacted the resident to discuss her recent reports, but she ended the call and asked for written communication only. It said it gave her guidance on how to document the noise and provided diary sheets, to help her capture the evidence it needed before taking further action. It maintained its staff acted appropriately.
18. Parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. It correctly applied its complaints policy by limiting its response to events from December 2023 onwards, which ensured it considered relevant and current issues. Within this timeframe, it said the resident did not report any noise issues until summer 2025. It also partly followed its ASB policy by contacting the resident in November 2025 to discuss her recent noise reports.
19. However, the evidence does not show the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment in line with its policy. Although an officer contacted the resident in November 2025, it did not complete the required assessment or follow up by other means after the call ended. This was a failing, as the assessment was needed to decide appropriate next steps.
20. The landlord also gave inconsistent information about which team should manage the resident’s noise reports. After the November 2025 call, it advised her to report future issues to the council’s noise team. This contradicted its ASB policy, which says low‑level noise should be managed by the housing team, and risked delaying action.
21. In addition, the landlord did not provide the resident with an action plan following her reports, as required by its ASB policy. While it issued diary sheets, it did not set out in writing how it would manage the case or what steps it would take. This was not in line with its policy.
22. Overall, while the landlord responded to the resident’s noise reports in 2025, it did not follow its ASB policy in full. It did not complete a risk assessment to understand the seriousness of the reports or their impact on the resident, and it did not provide her with a written action plan setting out next steps.
23. Orders have been made for the landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of this determination to discuss the current position, complete a risk assessment and confirm in writing whether it considers the issue to be ASB, together with an action plan if it does. We have also ordered it to pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount ordered is in line with our compensation guidance for failings of this scale and nature and their impact.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

24. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The council issued both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses slightly outside its policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 8 days after receipt at stage 1 and 6 days at stage 2. These both exceeded its 5 day timescale. It subsequently issued its responses within the appropriate timescales. The landlord should have recognised these delays and apologised for them. Nonetheless they were very short, and there is no indication they caused any adverse effect..

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The council is reminded of the importance of issuing complaint response within the timeframes set out in its own compliant policy and the Code. If there are delays, it must ensure it acknowledges this in its response.

Communication

27. The council’s communication with the resident was good. It responded to the resident’s reports in good time. Additionally when she asked for communication to be in writing only it acknowledged this and adjusted accordingly.