London Borough of Croydon (202515498)

Background

1. The resident reports that she has experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from residents of 2 neighbouring properties dating back for some years. This includes noise nuisance, verbal abuse, and drug related activity. She complained via a representative (a support worker) about the landlord’s handling of her reports. The landlord is aware that she has mental and physical health issues, and she is elderly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of ASB

6. The landlord did not do enough to record, investigate, and act on the resident’s reports of ASB.
7. It demonstrated poor oversight and ownership of the issues, and missed opportunities to reflect on its failings, take accountability, and put things right for the resident.
8. It did not complete risk assessments or otherwise consider the resident’s vulnerability. It did not explore her communication preferences or make reasonable efforts to engage her.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord did not log or formally respond to the resident’s initial complaint.
10. It delayed responding to the complaint at stage 2 and ultimately refused to consider the complaint which was unfair. This denied the resident a meaningful resolution, and learning for itself.

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.

11. The resident’s representative complained to the landlord on behalf of the resident and another neighbour. For clarity, this investigation only considers the resident’s experience of ASB and the aspects of the complaint that were relevant to her, as well as the landlord’s response to her concerns.
12. When investigating complaints about ASB we do not decide if ASB happened or who is responsible. We assess how the landlord handled the reports. We look at whether it followed its policy, acted fairly, and responded reasonably in the circumstances.
13. The landlord has an ASB policy which says it should respond to reports of ASB within 3 days. It identifies noise nuisance, vandalism, verbal abuse, pet nuisance, and drug-related activity as examples of ASB. It may respond to ASB with informal action such as mediation and verbal or written warnings. It will liaise with relevant multiagency partners when investigating and responding to ASB.
14. The resident complained to the landlord in August 2024. Despite this, the landlord did not log a complaint. However, its tenancy officer responded to her concerns after 3 days and asked for more information about when the issues had occurred. They noted they needed clear and up-to-date information before they approached the alleged perpetrators. They also attached diary sheets. We understand the resident had reported similar issues historically. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to establish if her concerns were current and it responded within the appropriate timescale.
15. The landlord emailed the resident via her representative. There is no evidence the resident or her representative replied. The resident did not have access to email, so it was reasonable for the landlord to contact her in this way. But it should also have tried to call or write to her, to speak to her directly and learn more about her experience. There is no evidence it did, or that it took any further action.
16. Apart from the resident’s complaints in August and October 2024, we have not seen evidence she raised any concerns about ASB with the landlord in the preceding 12 months. Or that she completed diary sheets within this period, though she had earlier in 2023.
17. In its complaint response the landlord said the case had been open throughout 2024, which suggests it was aware the issues were ongoing. It also acknowledged it had delayed investigating. It did not address the reason for its delays or compensate the resident which was unreasonable. We have considered this in our overall order for compensation for distress and inconvenience below. This also demonstrates poor record keeping as it has provided no records of any reports, communications, enquiries, or actions in relation to the ASB.
18. The landlord outlined appropriate steps to investigate the issues in its stage 1 response. It said it would contact the police to discuss her allegations about drug use, and its tenancy officer would contact the resident to learn more, but there is no evidence it did. Internal emails show that, after the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord checked the case management system and spoke to officers in the ASB team. It found no evidence it had taken any action.
19. However, it did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. Instead, it assured her it had logged her reports and would continue to work with her to manage issues in line with its ASB policy. Its response was vague and inaccurate, given there is no evidence it was working with her. It also provided no evidence it took any action following the complaint. The complaints process provided an opportunity for its to take stock of the situation, learn from its failures, and ensure ownership of the issues going forward. It failed to do so, to the ongoing detriment of the resident.
20. The landlord confirmed it had an ASB case open from 2013 to 2025. Opening an ASB case is a process by which a landlord can record, investigate, and aim to resolve or mitigate ASB. Its investigations and interventions should be targeted and time limited. The ASB case served no purpose as the landlord did not record or act on the allegations. Nor did it complete a risk assessment to show it had considered the resident’s vulnerability (and other factors) or otherwise explore the impact on her wellbeing.
21. As part of her complaint, the resident expressed worry that the landlord would move her. This appears to have been based on the landlord previously suggesting this as a resolution to the issues. The landlord did not address this concern in its complaint response. It missed an opportunity to assure the resident this was optional. As a result, she experienced ongoing, avoidable worry.
22. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB. It did not do enough to record, investigate, and act on her reports. While it is not clear to what extent the resident clearly communicated issues prior to her complaint, it had an open ASB case and acknowledged the issue was ongoing and unresolved throughout 2024. More significantly, it failed to act following her complaint. This is despite the steps it outlined in its stage 1 response. It took no accountability and provided no remedy for its failings in its stage 2 response.
23. We have recommended that the landlord review its ASB policy or implement an accompanying procedure. The landlord has an ASB policy, but it is dated 2014 and does not outline a clear process for dealing with reports of ASB. This should include requirements for completing action plans and risk assessments to inform its approach. It should also ensure all information is recorded to ensure effective oversight. These aspects were lacking in this case and would have improved its accountability.
24. We have made orders for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns and learn more about the ASB, which she reports is ongoing. It must devise an action plan with steps to investigate and improve the situation.
25. It must apologise and compensate the resident £350, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. Payments of this amount are appropriate where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failures or put them right, causing the resident distress and inconvenience.

26. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and within 20 working days at stage 2. These periods are in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out standards for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
27. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2024 and said she wished to complain about how it had handled her reports of ASB. The landlord should have logged this as a complaint and responded formally but it did not do so. It has not acknowledged or apologised for this failure which is unreasonable.
28. As a result, the resident had to complain again on 2 October 2024. The landlord responded on 19 October 2024, which was 3 days late. This was not a significant delay but there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident or acknowledged this. It should have apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused in its response.
29. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 January 2024, and the landlord responded on 3 March 2024, after 40 working days. This was double the period outlined in its policy and the Code. It notified the resident on 7 February 2024 that it needed more time. It said it would provide a further update with a new deadline for its response but there is no evidence it did.
30. Within its final response, it explained it could not consider the complaint as it was appropriate for her concerns to be dealt with under its ASB policy. The landlord’s position was unfair and inaccurate. The resident was not simply complaining that the ASB was occurring, but about the landlord’s response to her reports. It was therefore appropriate for it to consider her complaint in full. Especially as it had identified service failures in its investigation of the complaint at both stages. Its stage 2 response was delayed while it tried to find evidence of how it had responded to the ASB. Instead of acknowledging it had not investigated her concerns, it suspended the complaint process. It denied the resident a meaningful resolution, and learning for itself.
31. We have found maladministration on the basis the landlord did not log and respond to the resident’s initial complaint. It then delayed in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and ultimately refused to consider it. This lengthened the process for the resident, who had to refer her complaint to our Service, and caused her distress and inconvenience.
32. The landlord must apologise to the resident and compensate her £200. This reflects the significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and the detriment caused to the resident.
33. The landlord should review the failures identified in this report and share learning with its complaint handling team and the relevant individuals. Going forward it should not unnecessarily refuse to log or escalate a complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. This impacted our ability to investigate the issues as it was not clear to what extent the neighbour reported ASB or what actions the landlord took. It also affected the landlord’s ability to provide a meaningful complaint response and to manage the issues. The landlord should consider whether it has effective systems in place to record and retain information, or if staff training is required. This is outlined in our recommendations (above).

Communication

35. The landlord was not proactive in its communication. It did not make sufficient attempts to contact the resident, and on other occasions did not contact her at all. As a result, it did not have the information it needed to support her. It should be mindful of residents’ communication preferences, particularly for elderly or vulnerable residents who may have difficulty using technology.