From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202328627)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328627

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

14 April 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about warning letters the landlord sent the resident following reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette, which she has occupied since April 2008. She is a secure tenant.
  2. On 4 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint about the officers who attended her home “unannounced” on 28 September 2023. In particular, she raised concerns that:
    1. the officers had not mentioned that they wanted to talk about an incident involving her partner. The fact that her partner had an argument with another resident did not give the landlord “a right” to give her a warning. It had not “properly” investigated the incident.
    2. she wanted to take the matter further as she should have “been offered an appointment at the very least”.
    3. she wanted the warning removed from her record.
  3. By the end of the complaints procedure the landlord acknowledged that the situation could have been handled better and that the resident should have had the opportunity to have her account heard before the warning was issued. However, it would not remove the warnings from the resident’s file as it was “unlikely a different decision would have been reached” if the fault had not occurred. The landlord set out its position in its final response letter of 1 February 2024.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to us on 27 February 2024. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to remove the warnings from her file. She reiterated to us on 29 March 2025 that this was the outcome she was seeking in referring her complaint to us for investigation.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.o. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:, “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide”. It is acknowledged that the resident disputes the reports which resulted in the landlord issuing warning letters to her. While her concerns are noted, when investigating a complaint about ASB, it would not be for the Ombudsman to conclude whether an incident occurred or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord followed its policy and/or procedure when responding to the reports it had received. It also follows that we cannot order a landlord to retract any warnings it has made to residents, or to remove these from a resident’s record, as we do not have the power to do so.
  2. Where we find that there has been a failing by a landlord, we may order a remedy that is aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been in, or so far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. Generally speaking, this may be for a landlord to apologise, pay compensation, carry out repairs (if relevant), or provide relevant staff with training. Our powers do not extend to ordering a landlord to amend their records or to remove warnings that were placed on a file in accordance with any relevant policies. Therefore, given that we do not have the authority to provide the outcome the resident is seeking, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.