London Borough of Croydon (202416544)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202416544 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Croydon |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
12 February 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported that someone was harassing her to the landlord. It was later identified that the person was her neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to place her in temporary accommodation and for a management move. Her daughter made a complaint to the landlord on her behalf about its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). In this report, both the resident and her daughter are referred to as ‘the resident’.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord failed to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s report of ASB in its response to her July 2024 complaint. It also failed to demonstrate that its decision to not place her into temporary accommodation later in 2024 was based on an appropriate risk-based assessment.
- Though the landlord offered appropriate compensation for its delay at stage 2, it also failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescale.
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:
|
No later than 12 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows:
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 12 March 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
November 2023 – January 2024 |
In November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that someone was harassing her. She explained that she did not know who the person was. The landlord placed her into temporary accommodation while it carried out its investigations. |
|
February 2024 |
The landlord told the resident that, following its investigation, there was not enough evidence to approve a management move. It explained that she would need to return to her flat as the temporary accommodation had ended. |
|
22 July 2024 |
The resident made a complaint. She said she was being constantly harassed by 2 residents who had mental health issues and lived on one of the floors above her. The alleged harassment included:
The resident said that the landlord had not supported her, ignored her reports, and her temporary accommodation had come to an end. She asked to be moved due to safety concerns and the effect the situation was having on her mental health. |
|
21 August 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said when the resident reported her concerns in late 2023, she explained that it might have been her ex–partner. The support agencies deemed that the risk was low at the time. Therefore, it did not have sufficient evidence for a management move. It was not aware that the resident’s neighbours were causing ASB against her. It asked her to report any issues with her neighbours to it and that it would call her on 29 August 2024 to discuss her concerns. |
|
October 2024 |
In early October 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that a neighbour was threatening her. The neighbour was identified and removed from the resident’s block by external agencies. The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation at the end of October. |
|
9 October 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said:
|
|
6 January 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s final response and handling of her reports of ASB. She said the landlord did not adequately support her during the time she reported the ASB. |
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 reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- When the resident reported ASB to the landlord in November 2023, the landlord said that it:
- Requested information from the police.
- Contacted support agencies.
- Moved the resident into temporary accommodation while it carried out its investigations into the ASB.
- In February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that the temporary accommodation was coming to an end and that she would need to return home. It explained that it would not be able to carry out a management move because of the lack of evidence. In its stage 1 complaint response, it explained its decision by noting that the resident had told the police that she believed that the ASB was caused by her ex- partner. Also, that support services considered that the risk was low.
- While we have not been provided with evidence of these actions, the resident has not disputed the landlord’s account. Therefore, we are satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps such as listening to the resident and working with partner agencies in line with its ASB policy. Also, that its decision not to approve a managed move at this time was reasonable. However, that the landlord has not provided us with this evidence is indicative of a record keeping issue. It should have records that corroborate with its complaint responses. As such, we have referred it to our online learning centre so it can ensure its record keeping is robust.
- We have not been provided with evidence from either party of whether further ASB incidents occurred over the months that followed. Therefore, whether further incidents occurred between February and July 2024 is unclear.
- In the resident’s 22 July 2024 complaint, she said that she was being “constantly harassed” by her neighbour. She explained that it was affecting her mental health. Given her concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted her in line with its ASB policy 3-working-day timescale. This would have demonstrated that it had listened to her concerns and had acted on them. There is also no evidence that it contacted her until it issued its stage 1 complaint a month later. That is a failing which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In particular, because of the specific concerns that she raised in her complaint.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it would call the resident on 29 August 2024 to discuss her concerns. However, there is no evidence that it did so. Nor is there evidence that it took any other action around that time to ensure she was supported and that it appropriately looked into her concerns. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns at this time. That is a further failing.
- There is no evidence to show that further reports of ASB were made between August and September 2024. Therefore, what transpired over those months is unclear.
- In early October 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had threatened her. She asked the landlord to place her in temporary accommodation. The landlord told her that it could not do so because there was an ongoing police investigation into the matter.
- The landlord’s response was inadequate. Its ASB policy states that it will carry out risk assessments to ensure any decisions made are balanced. Risk assessments allow landlords to identify all relevant risks so they can make fully informed decisions based on the specific circumstances of the situation. Therefore, the landlord’s reason not to place the resident in temporary accommodation should have been based on such a documented assessment.
- There is evidence that suggests that a risk assessment may have been completed around that time. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord’s decision was based on this or any other risk-based analysis. Taking this into consideration and the landlord’s response to the resident, it has not demonstrated that its decision to not move the resident into temporary accommodation at the time was reasonable and in line with its policy.
- Furthermore, the landlord’s response would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as it did not demonstrate to her that it had taken into consideration her concerns about her safety. It is noted that after further requests from the resident, it placed her in temporary accommodation at the end of October 2024 to give her “respite” from the situation. Around this time, the neighbour was removed from their flat by third-party agencies and returned around 17 November 2024.
- In early December 2024, the resident reported that she did not feel safe going back to her flat because the neighbour had returned. She said that they had been seen “loitering” and that they harassed her when she was by the block. She asked for temporary accommodation. The landlord explained that it would not provide further temporary accommodation because the neighbour had conditions placed on them. One of these was that they could not visit her floor. The landlord told the resident that she should call the police if the neighbour approached her or broke those conditions.
- It is unclear whether the resident was receiving external support at this time. Nonetheless, given her concerns and its decision to not place her into temporary accommodation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted her to support agencies or confirmed whether she was receiving support. In particular, as she had experienced violence in her past and she had voiced her concerns that the situation was affecting her mental health. That there is no record that it did either is unreasonable.
- It is noted that during this time the landlord had attempted a few times to carry out a risk assessment with the resident, but it was unable to reach her over the phone. However, given the circumstances and her further reports, it would have been reasonable for it to have attempted to carry out the risk assessment by an alternative method. In particular, as the resident was communicating with it by email at this time.
- Alternatively, the landlord may have considered completing the risk assessment with the information that it had available. This would have provided some risk-based evidence to demonstrate that its decision to not place the resident into temporary accommodation at the time was appropriate. It would have also provided the resident with a more meaningful response that showed it had considered her current circumstances and was taking her concerns seriously. Therefore, that it did not demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to ensure its decision to not place the resident in temporary accommodation was based on appropriate information was a further failing.
- Given the impact the landlord’s failings would have had on the resident and her specific circumstances, we have ordered the landlord to pay her £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
- It is noted that the landlord was taking steps to bring the resident’s case to its panel to consider a management move. Since its stage 2 response it has approved a management move and the resident is in temporary accommodation. If she has any concerns about how the landlord has handled her case since its January 2025 stage 2 response, she has the option of raising a new complaint. She may then refer this to us if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The resident’s daughter made a formal complaint on her behalf on 22 July 2024. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it had permission from the resident to respond. However, there is no evidence that it contacted her or her daughter for the permission at the time.
- It was not until 7 August 2024 that the landlord asked the resident’s daughter to confirm she had permission to discuss her mother’s concerns. This was after its response was due on 6 August 2024. Therefore, its delay to progress and respond to the complaint in line with its 10-working-day timescale for its stage 1 complaint responses was a failing.
- The landlord’s records do not show when it received the required permission. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that it was reasonable that it took a further 10 working days to respond. There is also no evidence that it provided an update about its delayed response to the resident. This was not in line with its complaint policy, which states that it will keep residents updated when its response is delayed. Therefore, that there is no evidence that it did is a further complaint handling failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for its delayed response at stage 1.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response approximately 3 months after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a significant departure from its 20-working-day policy timescale for its stage 2 responses. There is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated about the status of her complaint during that time. In recognition of the failing it offered the resident £100 compensation. This was reasonable, proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- There were examples of poor record keeping in this case. This suggests that the landlord may need to improve its record keeping practices and provide refresher training for its staff. Therefore, it may wish to complete our eLearning on knowledge and information management, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.
Communication
- This investigation highlighted that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated during the period its complaint responses were delayed. This suggests that it may need to strengthen its communication with residents during its complaints process. Long periods without updates caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress. Regular, proactive communication, especially when delays occur, helps manage expectations and creates a more transparent and responsive experience. Therefore, the landlord may wish to complete our eLearning courses on complaint handling and communication.