London Borough of Redbridge (202329547)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329547

London Borough of Redbridge

7 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette on the second floor. The resident had lived there with her husband since February 2013. At the time of the complaint, the resident’s 3 young children also lived at the property.
In August 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the occupant of the ground floor flat (the neighbour) and another male (referred to in this report as the visitor), were committing crime and causing ASB within the block. In September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the visitor had made threats to kill her family and the police were involved.
The resident made a further reports to the landlord, involving the neighbour and the visitor, between September 2022 and September 2023.
On 10 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that despite making several reports it had not taken any action. She said her daily life had been affected and her family continued to be targeted by the visitor.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2023 and said it “partly agreed” with the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the lack of communication and said all reports made by the resident were being looked into. The landlord said it had arranged a meeting with the police to discuss the matter further.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said that despite the landlord agreeing with her complaint it had still not taken action for over a year. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2023 and said:
1. It had reviewed the incidents reported by the resident and it had worked closely with the police.
2. The action taken by the police had not resolved the problem.
3. It was liaising with its legal team regarding taking tenancy action and it would update her further.
4. It felt it could have explored taking action at an earlier stage and it was sorry.
The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted on her health. Where we find a failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any medical impact. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any impact to the resident’s health.
The resident has also informed us of other incidents of ASB, by the visitor, that directly impacted other residents of the block during this time. While the incidents are mentioned in this report for context, this investigation focuses on the ASB experienced by the resident.

The resident’s ASB reports

The block in which the resident lives is accessed via a security door using a key fob. The stairwells to the building are also accessed using a fob. The neighbour is a tenant of the same landlord. The neighbour’s property, regularly frequented by the visitor, is situated on the ground floor of the block.
The resident first reported concerns about the neighbour and the visitor to the landlord on 3 August 2022. She made a further report to it on 31 August 2022, that the visitor had been breaking into sheds at the block. Both of these reports referred to potential crimes, with other resident’s being impacted by the behaviour. The landlord shared this information promptly with the police and its response was reasonable.
On 5 September 2022, the visitor had accessed the second floor of the block and the resident’s husband asked him to leave. An altercation then took place between them, and the visitor made threats to kill the resident’s husband and her family. The threats were captured on the 999 call recordings. Both the resident’s husband and the visitor were arrested following this altercation.
The resident phoned the landlord on 6 September 2022 to inform it of what had happened, and she said she needed to speak to someone urgently, as she was scared due to the threats that had been made. The landlord visited the resident at her property the same day. Although there are no notes of what was discussed, the landlord opened an ASB case.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 September 2022 and said her husband wanted to plead guilty, even though he had done nothing wrong. The landlord advised the resident against this as it could have implications on her tenancy agreement. It also advised the resident to put a case together against the visitor, including the use of diary sheets. The resident informed us that she felt this advice was unfair. Paragraph 4.3 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states tenants must not cause alarm, harassment, or distress to another person, which includes using violence. A conviction for a violent offence committed at the property would meet the criteria outlined by the landlord which would have a bearing on the resident’s tenancy. So the advice given by the landlord was reasonable.
The resident also informed the landlord that she was scared as the visitor was still staying at the neighbour’s property with his friends. The resident has told us during this conversation, or at the home visit the previous week, the landlord told her the visitor may “retaliate” and to “be careful” when dealing with him. She said this caused her to feel more scared as she believed the visitor was likely to act on the threats he had made. While this is not documented, the landlord’s notes suggest it was aware of the visitor’s behaviour from previous unrelated incidents. This would tend to support the advice given to the resident.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states when it receives a report of ASB it will assign a level of priority that will inform its response. The procedure says incidents involving threats of violence will be assigned priority 1. From the information provided, the landlord did not assign any level of priority to this case. It is understandably difficult for the landlord when there 2 parties, and both appear to be involved. The police had arrested both parties. However, given the level of threats made, the intelligence held by the landlord and the previous reports of ASB by the visitor, it would have been a reasonable expectation for the landlord to give this matter priority 1 status. The landlord’s failure to assess the case in line with its policy and prioritise accordingly was significant.
The ASB procedure also states that when ASB has been reported it will:
1. Discuss the issues with resident and offer advice.
2. Carry out a risk assessment for all complaints that are not noise nuisance.
3. Agree an action plan.
The landlord did visit the resident quickly on the day she reported the matter to them. However, it did not carry out a risk assessment or agree a plan of action, other than the resident was to complete diary sheets. This was a further failing.
The landlord was also aware that the visitor was staying with the neighbour at a property it owned. Paragraph 4.1 of the tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for the behaviour of every person living or visiting the property. This responsibility extends to the property itself and the communal areas and shared gardens. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the neighbour regarding the behaviour of the visitor and remind them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The resident made a further call to the landlord on 14 September 2022. The landlord’s notes recorded she was “very upset”, and she believed that the visitor was living with the neighbour, despite being the tenant of another property. The landlord passed on this information to the relevant local authority department the same day.
On 16 September 2022 the landlord wrote to all tenants of the block asking them if they had any information regarding the recent shed break-ins or any ASB that was taking place.
The resident told us that the landlord did not supply her with diary sheets to complete. However, the landlord’s records show she continued to report incidents to the landlord directly:
1. 18 September 2022 she reported another shed had been broken into.
2. 21 September 2022 she submitted a video of the visitor making threats to kill another resident in the presence of children.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the neighbour and invited them to attend an interview regarding the visitor on 29 September 2022. The letter also reminded the neighbour of their obligations under the tenancy agreement. This was a positive step for the landlord to take. However, there is no documented reasons to why this had not been done sooner. The neighbour did not attend the interview, and the landlord did not make any further attempt to contact them.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 September 2022 and said she had called the police after filming a conversation between the visitor and another male. The visitor had been recorded saying he would stab the resident’s husband in the neck, anything poured through the resident’s letter box was “fair game”, and he would “take out” the family when he next had the opportunity. The resident said she was now too scared to leave her property and had not taken her children to school. She also informed the landlord that she had seen the visitor breaking into another shed and the owner had also reported this to the police.
On the same day, the landlord received intelligence via the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) that the visitor may be carrying weapons, and it should be cautious when dealing with him. The MARAC is a regular meeting involving various agencies, including the local authority and police, to share information on high-risk / complex cases involving vulnerable victims and perpetrators of ASB. Given the latest threats and the intelligence received, the landlord should have revisited its ASB procedure and completed a risk assessment for the resident. The landlord’s failure to do this and consider tenancy action for the neighbour left the resident in a potentially dangerous situation.
On 6 October 2022, the landlord began liaising directly with the police in relation to the visitor’s behaviour. This multi-agency approached is in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord was aware at this point that the visitor had bail conditions not to contact the resident’s husband. However, there was nothing in place to prevent the visitor from attending the neighbour’s property.
On 7 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord that a CCTV camera had been installed outside of the neighbour’s property, and it was positioned to face hers. On 13 October 2022 she contacted the landlord again and said she was finding it hard to leave her property without being picked up by the CCTV and she felt the visitor was monitoring her family’s movements. The landlord sent the neighbour a letter the following day asking for the camera to be removed within 24 hours.
On 16 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the camera was still there but appeared to be pointing the other way. The landlord tasked its contractor to remove the camera the same day. While the camera was not removed until 7 November 2022, the landlord did chase its removal on 4 occasions and its actions were reasonable.
The charges against the resident’s husband were dropped on 3 November 2022. However, the visitor’s charges for the threats against her husband were still to proceed to court.
On 8 November 2022 the resident’s doorbell camera captured the visitor outside her property at approximately 1am wearing a mask. She reported it to the landlord the same day and said she was frightened as he had been able to gain access to her part of the block. The resident also said she had reported it to the police and the landlord asked her to keep it updated.
Paragraph 4.3 of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement places an obligation on them to ensure visitors to their property do not cause harassment, alarm, or distress to others. The visitor’s behaviour was clearly distressing to the resident, and this would have been clear from her communications with the landlord. The continued pattern of behaviour towards the resident’s family could also be described as harassment. While the criminal elements of this behaviour were appropriately left to the police, the landlord did not consider any tenancy enforcement action.
On 9 November 2022 the police informed the landlord the visitor had been bailed to the address of the neighbour due to “mobility issues”. While it may have been a legal requirement for the visitor to stay at that address for the duration of his bail, it did not absolve the landlord of its obligation to deal with the ASB reported. Furthermore, the resident had provided the landlord with evidence in her reports that the “mobility issues” may have been untrue.
The landlord continued to liaise with the police through December 2022 and January 2023. It was aware the police had offered the resident further safety measures such as a panic button and a fire-proof letter box. On 16 February 2023 the landlord was informed the visitor had been formally charged and the prosecution would be asking for a restraining order against him.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2023 to report her car windscreen had been broken. She said there was no witnesses, but she believed her vehicle had been targeted. The landlord advised her to follow the matter up with the police. This was reasonable advice for the landlord to give.
On 3 May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the case against the visitor had been dropped, and she was concerned what would happen. No further incidents of ASB were reported until 26 July 2023. The resident told the landlord that her husband and children had passed the visitor in the car park and the visitor had said “there’s a lot of people round here who don’t like you”. She said the visitor then started shouting to 2 males in a car saying, “that’s him” and “I’ll tell you what I want you to do”. The resident said her husband rushed the children inside, fearing for their safety.
The landlord’s notes show that it did liaise with the police. However, the landlord again failed to revisit its ASB procedure and consider taking tenancy action against the neighbour.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 and 22 August 2023 and reported the visitor had installed more CCTV cameras at the neighbour’s property that captured people coming into the building and in communal areas. She also said she had been sworn at by the neighbour.
The landlord’s notes show it attended the neighbour’s property on 28 August 2023 and requested the cameras were removed within 7 days. The notes also recorded the resident was informed to report the matter to the Information Commissioners Office and “given the intel, officers [of the landlord] should not attend this address”.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the neighbour and again requested for the cameras to be taken down within 7 days or they would be removed. Only 2 of the cameras were removed and the landlord tasked it contractor to remove the rest.
On 20 September 2023, the resident made a further report of ASB to the landlord. She said the visitor had been outside of her front door, a part of the block he should not be able to access and had been shouting obscenities and taking photos. She said she was unable to leave the property due to his behaviour and had informed the police. The landlord did not respond to the resident, which was unreasonable. However, the landlord’s notes show it acted upon the information received and requested the help of other local authority departments to tackle the problem. While this was a positive step for the landlord to take, it should have been taken much earlier. Furthermore, it did not apply its ASB procedure and allocate the case a priority or produce a risk assessment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 October 2023 that it had not taken any action for over 12 months to deal with the situation. This appears to have prompted the landlord to contact the police and arrange a meeting to discuss the visitor. The meeting was due to take place on 19 October 2023 but was cancelled as a key member of landlord staff was unable to attend.
The landlord’s complaint responses both lacked any meaningful review of the resident’s ASB reports and its actions. Instead, the landlord commented on the matter in more general terms. For example, it apologised for any lack of communication the resident felt she had experienced, without acknowledging where it may have failed to meet her expectations in that area. The stage 2 response said it believed that the police involvement would have resolved the matter, and it could have explored acting earlier. It said it would liaise with its legal team and would update the resident further.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 23 November 2023 and issued them with a final warning in relation to the behaviour of themselves and the visitor. The visitor passed away shortly afterwards, and the resident moved from the property in February 2025.
The evidence shows on several occasions, the resident contacted the landlord and its response was delayed. This occurred when the resident’s point of contact had been on annual leave. Given the ongoing nature of the situation, it would have reasonable for the landlord to provide another point of contact to better manage the resident’s expectations and manage the ongoing issues.
The resident has also told us she submitted 2 applications for a community trigger (now known as an ASB case review). The resident is unsure as to the dates the applications were submitted, as they were both submitted through the landlord’s website. She told us she did not hear back from the landlord on either of the applications.
The landlord has not provided any details of these requests. The landlord’s ASB policy states a resident can apply for a case review if they meet certain criteria. The landlord’s website states case review applications will be assessed within 10 working days and the resident will be informed if they meet the criteria. Due to the lack of information provided by the landlord regarding these applications, we are unable to say that the landlord fulfilled its obligations in respect of the case review applications.
In summary the landlord failed to apply its ASB procedure when handling the resident’s reports of ASB. The reports were never given a priority rating and no risk assessment was ever carried out. This was a significant failing given the intelligence the landlord had about the visitor and the nature of the threats the resident had reported. The landlord also failed to agree on a plan of action to tackle the behaviour. Instead of using the tools available to it, such as warning letters and tenancy enforcement action, the landlord relied on the actions of the police. When the court case was dismissed, and the resident continued to report ASB, the landlord again failed to use the tools available. While the landlord did issue the neighbour a final warning, this was 14 months after the first report of ASB.
The landlord’s failures to act in this case have led to a prolonged period of distress and inconvenience for the resident and her family. This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there was a significant impact on the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £600 compensation for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.