London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202521839)

Decision
Case ID	202521839
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a sheltered scheme studio flat. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities which included stress and a cancer diagnosis. After moving in, she said her neighbour tried to enter her flat uninvited so she avoided his attempts to engage with her. Shortly after she started to experience persistent DIY and loud television noise late at night. She complained when the noise persisted.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the flat above.
   2. Request for a transfer to another property.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:

3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB from the flat above.
   2. Request for a transfer.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Resident’s reports of ASB from the flat above.

5. The landlord did not fully adhere to its ASB policy. It provided insufficient evidence to support the actions it said it had taken. It did not adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Request for a transfer.

6. Raised the resident’s expectations about an internal move. It failed to ensure all necessary processes were complete in order for the move to be approved. It did not apologise or consider redress for the likely distress this caused her.

Complaint

7. The landlord did not meet its policy timescales for acknowledging the resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge its failing, apologise or offer redress.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the flat above £300 for the likely distress and inconvenience of the failings identified in its handling of her transfer. £50 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling failures. 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 27 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord support the resident to ensure her housing application is assessed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had experienced noise nuisance from the neighbour upstairs for 2 years. She had reported issues several times and been promised action. However, several staff left without resolving the issue. She said officers eventually visited her neighbour but found no evidence of DIY activity and said his floor covering was adequate. She said piles of wood, metal and a workbench were visible on his balcony, but the landlord took no action. She said living in a bedsit meant she could not move to another room when the noise occurred. She asked it to install soundproof underlay and carpet in the flat above. She said she was receiving cancer treatment, the sleep deprivation was “torture”, and she’d had suicidal thoughts.
16 December 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said a visit to the neighbour found no evidence to take action. Previously the resident had wanted to remain anonymous, which limited its options. It said it had met her several times and had raised the possibility of a transfer, which she had previously refused. It noted she submitted a transfer application in November 2024. With her consent, it had now approached the neighbour about the noise, discussed possible solutions, and agreed to replace a piece of furniture that may have been contributing. It said any further noise incidents needed monitoring and had requested recording equipment. It noted she was currently recording incidents for the Environmental Protection Team. It said it would continue to review her case.
18 December 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she liked living in the scheme and had hoped to stay. She disputed refusing a transfer. She said she enquired about moving to flat 1 but it discouraged her because it was next to the same neighbour and she may still be affected by noise. She said it advised her to complete a transfer application for when another property became vacant. She said she had called the environmental noise team several times to witness the noise, but they would not attend. She said she was not recording the noise as her phone was too old. This was why she asked for recording equipment but had no update on this. She was concerned it was not considering her safety when she felt under threat. She noted that a male colleague accompanied a female officer to visit the neighbour.
12 January 2025	The resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalation request. It acknowledged her request for her complaint to go to stage 2 on 17 January and said it would respond by 10 February 2025.
10 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it met her within its 5‑day response time on 21 January 2025. It repeated that an inspection found no evidence to support her allegations. The agreed action was to remove an office chair with wheels, which had been completed. It repeated that she had been recording noise disturbance and had been advised that she was on the Environmental Protection Team’s waiting list for noise recording equipment. It said it had requested an estimated timeframe and would monitor delivery. It said that, following its visit on 22 January 2025, it was considering an available property in the scheme for her. It committed to regular contact to support her through the process and to keep the investigator informed. It said its officer visited the neighbour with a male colleague as part of a training session, not due to safety concerns. It noted she now had a ring doorbell for peace of mind.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She felt the landlord had taken no real action to put things right. She wanted an apology and compensation.

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	Reports of ASB from the flat above
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident has told us that her physical and mental health were affected by the landlord’s inaction in dealing with the ASB. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim via the courts. 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 illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if the landlord should pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. On receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord’s policy requires it to assess a likely grade for the ASB, from 1 to 4 (1 being the highest level and 4 the lowest). The grade given determines the required response time to interview the resident, at which point a risk assessment matrix should be completed.
10. The landlord said it opened ASB cases, met with the resident and completed several risk assessments. The ASB notes provided as evidence related to a separate incident in January/February 2024 involving drug dealing and intimidation outside the block. Other notes concern ASB from the neighbour but relate to incidents after the final complaint response in May 2025.
11. We have seen no evidence that the landlord graded the ASB or completed risk assessments in the period leading up to the resident’s complaint. While she had asked to remain anonymous, it ought to still have opened a case and followed its processes. Including completing a risk assessment in line with its policy, considering her vulnerabilities, and advised her to keep diary sheets of any noise. This would have given it information of the frequency and nature of the noise.
12. The landlord’s final complaint response said it contacted the resident within 5 working days in line with its policy response times. This is the response time for ASB determined to be low, at grade 3. However, as stated earlier, there is no evidence that a grade was awarded, a risk assessment completed, or an action plan in line with its policy. Its records consisted mainly of internal emails and it failed to demonstrate that it followed its ASB policy.
13. The landlord’s policy states that this ASB grade is for behaviour that “breaches tenancy conditions, but with no intention to cause harm”. It can occur through thoughtlessness. The resident said the ASB only began after the neighbour tried to enter her property and she reduced contact with him. Had the landlord documented the ASB, it could have demonstrated whether it considered her claim that the behaviour was targeted and intentional. If so this would require a higher grade and a quicker response.
14. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint of 30 November 2024 appeared timely. Having obtained her consent to approach the neighbour, it said it visited him on 3 December 2024. It also said it removed a damaged chair by 11 December 2024, which was likely contributing to the noise. It also referenced that she was communicating with the council’s environmental protection service, which is responsible for enforcement action for statutory noise.
15. While we have not seen evidence to substantiate its statements this would have been reasonable action for the landlord to take. It said it had not found sufficient evidence to support the allegation and landlords cannot take enforcement action unless there is significant evidence of a persistent problem.
16. While the landlord took some positive steps to address the resident’s concerns, it failed to demonstrate how it considered her vulnerabilities or followed its ASB policy. It was not evident that the landlord considered its policy until the end of March 2025. At which point it said it was referring her case to the ASB team. This was around 4 months later and after its final response. Its delay in doing so not only failed to adhere to its policy but also showed that it did not adequately consider her vulnerabilities. This failing represents a finding of maladministration and we have made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200.

Complaint	Request for a transfer to another property
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

17. The resident submitted a housing application form to the council in November 2024. By March 2025, the application had not been assessed, which contributed to her not being considered for a transfer within the scheme.
18. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity. Assessments for the housing register relate to its function as a strategic housing provider, not as a landlord. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the council’s delay in assessing her housing application. The resident may wish to submit a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to her complaint.
19. After being told that a move was no longer available, the resident said she had to call emergency services, who diagnosed a panic attack. This was shortly followed by a stroke which she attributes to the stress of living with the ongoing ASB. As referenced earlier this would be a matter for the courts.

What we did investigate

20. The resident said that in October 2024, the effect of living with noise nuisance led her to consider transferring to another property. She wanted to remain in the same scheme but move away from the neighbour. The landlord advised her to complete a housing application for when a property became vacant. The council acknowledged it had received her application in November 2024.
21. The landlord identified a flat within the same scheme in February 2025 that it said was suitable for the resident. She viewed the property and said she accepted it. It advised her the timeframe for moving would be 8 to10 weeks. It said she was happy with the timeframe and that it agreed to keep her informed and support her through the process. It also told a councillor it had identified a property that met her needs and that it was processing this.
22. The landlord has a process in place to consider discretionary moves outside of the usual allocations process. This involves completing a director’s discretion report and referring the case to a director’s panel for approval. Within weeks of its final response, the resident was informed the move had not been approved.
23. While the resident had completed an application for the housing register in November 2024, it had not been progressed. The director’s panel can use its discretion to agree whether a direct offer should be made. However, if an applicant is not on the housing register, the only outcome is for the request to be rejected.
24. The landlord’s email on 16 December 2024 said it was supporting the resident to get her application accepted quickly to remain in the scheme. Its investigation notes on 23 January 2025 stated her application for transfer was still in progress, but it was actively chasing this.
25. Feedback from the panel recommended the landlord establish whether the resident was eligible to join the housing register. If so, it could look at options to move her from her current home. It understood she was currently in a ground-floor flat that met her needs. If the noise nuisance met the threshold for a management transfer, or a medical priority was awarded, she would have grounds to join the housing register.
26. The landlord commonly uses this process for management transfers and other discretionary moves. As such, it would be reasonable to expect that it knows the criteria and the information the panel fed back from the meeting. It had clearly not been successful in supporting her to get her application assessed. As she was not on the register, it should not have implemented the director’s discretion process.
27. The resident said she had cleared belongings and obtained quotes for removals in anticipation of moving. This outcome would likely have been distressing and disappointing for her. The landlord’s advice and actions gave every indication she would be moving. This significantly raised her expectations, which was a failing.
28. The landlord recognised that there were failings in its handling of the transfer. It suggested a “reflection session”, which shows its willingness to take some learning from the complaint. However, it was not evident that it apologised to the resident for its failure to apply the director’s discretion process correctly, for the distress caused, or offer any redress.

Complaint	Resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge complaints within five working days and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s complaint policy complies with the Code.
30. The resident complained at stage 1 on 30 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 December 2024, meeting its 5 working day timescale. It responded on 16 December 2024, meeting its 10-working day response time.
31. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 December 2024. She chased the landlord for an acknowledgment on 12 January 2025 which caused avoidable time and trouble for her. It did not acknowledge her complaint until 17 January 2025. This was 14 working days later than its 5-day timescale
32. Both the landlord’s acknowledgement and final complaint response recorded receipt of the resident’s escalation request as 13 January 2025. This was incorrect and was the day after she sent her email complaining that the landlord had not acknowledged her escalation request. It should ensure accuracy within its complaint responses.
33. The landlord failed to acknowledge any delay and, as such, did not apologise or considered any redress. We have made a failure finding and ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

34. The landlord decided to move the resident within the block as a solution to the ASB. While it made the referral to the appropriate panel, it did not ensure all administrative processes had been followed for the recommendation to succeed. It needs to investigate whether there is a staff training requirement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements for complaints and ASB to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

 Communication

36. There was insufficient evidence to support the landlord’s communication claims for the period in question.