London Borough of Croydon (202501875)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom terrace house. The resident is supported by a representative who also lives in the property. He acted on her behalf throughout this case. During the complaint process, the resident informed the landlord that she was receiving treatment for cancer.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures, took appropriate steps to address the ASB, and offered £400 in compensation. This amount was proportionate to the impact of its failings and helped put things right.
   2. The landlord failed to follow its own complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and caused avoidable delays. Its compensation offer was insufficient given the extent of the delays.

 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 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.

7. This investigation focuses on the concerns raised in the resident’s formal complaint. We have reviewed the period from December 2023 to March 2025 to ensure the landlord had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to those concerns. The resident may wish to pursue any current issues directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
8. The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The resident’s reports about the neighbour met this definition.
9. The Ombudsman does not decide if ASB happened or who is responsible. We assess how the landlord handled the reports during the relevant complaint period. We look at whether it followed its policy, acted fairly, and responded reasonably in the circumstances.
10. The landlord has not disputed that the resident reported ASB from a neighbour around December 2023. On 27 February 2024, the resident (through her representative) made a further report of noise from her neighbour, including banging and shouting late at night. The landlord responded on 28 March 2024. This was significantly outside the 3-working day target set out in its ASB policy. Across both complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delay dating back to December 2023, issued an apology, and offered compensation. These were reasonable steps to address the failing.
11. On 28 March 2024, the landlord opened an ASB investigation, provided the resident with access to a noise recording app, and said it had visited the neighbour. These were appropriate actions that demonstrated the landlord started to take the reports seriously.
12. On 12 April 2024, the landlord met with the resident and representative. It reviewed the noise reports, explained the neighbour had extra needs, and offered mediation. These actions followed its policy and were reasonable.
13. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to complete a risk and vulnerability assessment when it first opened the case. The resident’s representative informed it on 27 February 2024 that she had health issues and that the ASB was causing additional stress. Despite this, it did not refer the case to its risk and vulnerability panel until February 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the assessment earlier so it could identify the resident’s needs and offer appropriate support. This failing may have caused the resident to believe that the landlord was biased in who it was willing to support.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will regularly update the resident on the progress it is making with an ASB case. Between 12 April and 10 June 2024, it gave no updates to the resident. This lack of communication was a failure to follow its own policy. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise for communication failings in its stage 2 response and offer compensation.
15. On 10 June 2024, the landlord informed the resident that mediation was unavailable. However, it did not explain when mediation might become available again or explore alternative options, such as neighbourhood agreements. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the case. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider and apply the tools available to seek to resolve the issue at an earlier stage.
16. A Community Trigger meeting, initiated by the resident, was held on 9 July 2024. The panel reviewed the landlord’s actions to date, found no evidence of failings in its handling of the ASB case, and recommended that it seek direct communication with the resident. However, the meeting records incorrectly stated that the resident had refused mediation. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the error, clarified that it was a mistake in the meeting minutes, and appropriately apologised for the distress caused.
17. The representative reported harassment from the neighbour on 22 October 2024. He said that he had reported this to the police. Although the police lead on investigating potential crimes, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the report and reassure the resident that it would liaise with them and monitor the situation.
18. However, the landlord remained actively involved after the initial report. It met with the representative on 3 December 2024, arranged mediation on 12 December 2024, visited the neighbour on 7 January and 17 February 2025, and held a further meeting with the representative on 20 February 2025.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the police about the reports, and they had confirmed that they would take no further action. Although it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer earlier reassurance, its ongoing engagement, contact with the police, and case management were reasonable and aligned with its obligations.
20. In its stage 1 response in November 2024, the landlord said it would offer Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) to both parties and refer the case to mediation. The representative later informed the landlord that, following legal advice, he would not sign an ABC. As ABCs are voluntary, it was reasonable for it not to pursue this option further at that time.
21. The landlord appropriately arranged mediation, which took place on 12 December 2024. When reports of ASB continued, it reasonably re-offered the ABCs in its March 2025 stage 2 response. This showed its ongoing commitment to resolving the matter using proportionate and preventative tools available to it under its ASB policy. This encourages the use of ABCs and mediation to manage and reduce ASB.
22. In December 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and said that he would like to pursue the ABC and that while the resident was in hospital, a doctor could witness her sign the contract accordingly. The landlord acknowledged this, but there is no evidence this was followed up.
23. On 7 January 2025, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property and carried out an assessment to check whether any structural issues could be causing the reported noise. It found no evidence of a structural cause. This was a reasonable step that showed the landlord was actively exploring all possible options to respond to the resident’s concerns.
24. On 9 January 2025, the resident reported cannabis use by the neighbour. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It asked for more information, spoke with the neighbour, and engaged other neighbours as part of its investigation. These actions were in line with its ASB policy which requires officers to investigate reports, make enquiries, and take proportionate action based on the evidence.
25. The resident also complained that the landlord had dismissed noise recordings, saying they did not capture anything significant. To take formal action in ASB cases, such as issuing warnings or tenancy enforcement, landlords must gather evidence that the behaviour is serious and sustained. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had reviewed all recordings, including those submitted outside the noise app, and found no evidence of noise nuisance. It acknowledged that the representative had difficulty using the app and confirmed it had provided guidance for future submissions. This response was reasonable and aligned with the landlord’s ASB policy which requires evidence to support enforcement action.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it had not recorded verbal consent for the resident’s representative. However, records showed that the neighbour had raised a counter allegation involving the representative. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident remained responsible for the conduct of anyone living in, or visiting, the property. As a result, during the complaint process, the landlord made several attempts to contact the resident directly to fully investigate the counter allegation and work towards a resolution. Given this, its decision to speak with the resident rather than solely through her representative was reasonable and consistent with its duty to consider all sides of the dispute fairly.
27. The resident also raised concerns about staff conduct and how the landlord managed the ASB case. It is not our role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, we can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and acted reasonably in the circumstances. Across both complaint responses, it said it had reviewed case notes, correspondence, and staff statements, and did not identify any bias or unprofessional behaviour. It explained that officers acted appropriately in a sensitive case involving counter allegations.
28. Although the same officer remained involved after the concerns were raised, a senior staff member took oversight of the case to ensure fairness and continuity. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it took the concerns seriously, carried out a review, and provided a clear explanation of its actions.
29. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint. It apologised and offered £400 to recognise its delays and poor communication. It gave a fair assessment of the ASB actions taken so far and explained that ABCs and continued noise monitoring were available. While it also could have done more to complete a risk and vulnerability assessment earlier, the compensation of £400 was in line with our remedies guidance which recommends awards in this range for failures that caused an adverse impact. The amount reflected the impact on the resident and in our opinion provided reasonable redress up to March 2025.

30. The landlord uses a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states the landlord must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
31. On 14 June 2024, the resident’s representative raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have treated this as a formal complaint. It acknowledged the complaint in an email on 8 July 2024 but there is no evidence it logged this under its complaint procedure. This failure caused an unnecessary delay, and the resident had to raise the matter again in October 2024. The landlord missed an opportunity to respond earlier and did not follow its complaints policy or the Code.
32. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint in its stage 1 response. However, it did not explain why it did not progress the complaint raised in June 2024. It missed the opportunity to acknowledge earlier failings and issue a full apology.
33. The landlord also failed to meet the stage 2 complaint response deadline of 19 December 2024. The Code requires it to inform the resident before the due date if it cannot respond on time, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a revised response date. It notified the resident on 19 December 2024 and again on 24 January 2025 that it was still waiting for information. However, it did not give a new expected response date on either occasion. This was not in line with the Code and left the resident without a clear timeline.
34. The landlord took nearly 4 months to send its stage 2 complaint response after the resident escalated the complaint. We welcome its apology and offer of £50 compensation for the delay. However, given the failings at both stage 1 and stage 2, the offer does not go far enough to put things right. Based on this, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered £150 additional compensation to reflect the adverse impact of its failings.

Learning

35. The landlord should carry out risk and vulnerability assessments at the start of ASB investigations when residents raise health or wellbeing concerns.
36. The resident raised communication concerns to the landlord. The landlord should keep residents informed throughout ASB investigations by providing regular, timely updates in line with its policy.
37. The landlord should log complaints without delay and respond within the timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code. It should clearly communicate any delays and provide revised response dates.