London Borough of Redbridge (202515220)

Decision
Case ID	202515220
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Redbridge
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident lives with her partner in a ground-floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder for the building. The resident complained it had not taken action to resolve her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour in the flat above the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

We have found:

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord did not keep adequate records of its meeting with the resident and did not create an action plan or risk assessment. After it started legal proceedings against the neighbour it did not regularly update the resident about progress, or respond to her reports of ongoing ASB, for a period of around 2 years.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its process. It did not acknowledge or define her complaint at either stage which meant it did not address significant aspects of her complaint as part of its process. Though it upheld her complaint it failed to give clear reasons for its decision or details of how it would put things right.

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 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £600 for the for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by its handling of her reports of ASB. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in its complaint handling. 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 16 January 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must provide us with evidence that it has met with the resident and: Created a risk assessment for how the reported ASB is affecting her (and her household). It must provide evidence it has shared this with her. Created an action plan setting out any additional action it will take in relation to the reported ASB and an agreement on how it will update her in relation to the ASB case. It must provide evidence it has shared this with her. Provide her with information about the current status of the legal action against the neighbour. If possible, it should confirm when the court hearing has been scheduled for and what the potential outcomes could be of the hearing.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that: she and her partner had been reporting they were victims of ASB from the neighbour and her visitors for 2 years since she moved in she had complained to her MP in December 2023 and it was only after this it had issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). She said it would not have done anything if she had not involved the MP. the landlord had not told her how long the legal process would be. She said the ASB was ongoing and it had not taken action to prevent this. she considered it had taken her reports of ASB less seriously due to her ethnicity
4 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. it confirmed it was still taking legal action against the neighbour. It said the matter went to court in August 2024 and the court “ordered for actions to be taken, which [it understands] remain outstanding” it apologised for its delay in the handling of the case which was due to it not having a housing officer in place for the area
28 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint: she stated the landlord’s response did not give any information she was not already aware of. She said though it had upheld her complaint it had not said what it intended to do about it. she reiterated she considered her ethnicity had been a factor in why it had not taken action against the neighbour sooner she had been continuing to send it details of the ongoing ASB and wanted to know what it would do about it
18 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. it told the resident its legal action against the neighbour was last in court on 21 January 2025 and had been adjourned for a further hearing on 16 April 2025 it accepted there had been delays but stated the legal process was lengthy due to judicial requirements. It said it had been progressing the case since August 2024. it said it had seen no evidence its handling of the resident’s ASB case had been influenced by her ethnicity
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She told us the ASB from the neighbour is still ongoing after the landlord’s stage 2 response. She wanted it to provide compensation for the distress caused by its handling of her reports of 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 reported ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told the landlord that she had been reporting ASB since October 2022, around 2 years before her complaint on 2 October 2024. She was told in a meeting with it on 13 October 2023 that as it had not taken formal action against the neighbour during the first year of their tenancy, they had become a permanent tenant. We may not investigate events which have not been raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This is normally considered to be within 12 months. As such this investigation is focussed on events after 2 October 2023, events before this have been referred to for contextual purposes only.
The landlord started legal action against the neighbour in January 2024, which is ongoing as of the date of this report. It is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate matters which are the subject of court proceedings. As such, our investigation has focussed on how the landlord communicated with the resident and its responses.
We note that the resident considered that the landlord had treated her unfairly due to her ethnicity. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside our expertise. She may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.

What we have investigated

The landlord first sent the neighbour a warning letter for ASB on 10 November 2022. It reminded them they were on an introductory tenancy for 12 months and it may seek possession if there was evidence of further ASB.
Up until October 2023 the landlord contacted the police on 3 occasions (between January and September 2023). This was following reports of ASB by the neighbour and their visitors from other tenants in the building. It is not known whether the resident specifically witnessed or reported these. On 20 September 2023 it sent the neighbour a final warning stating it had consistently been receiving reports of them perpetrating ASB since January and it would start formal action if they did not change their behaviour. This was appropriate and in line with the range of tools set out in its ASB Policy.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident acknowledging she had been reporting ASB by the neighbour for some time and confirming it had sent a final warning. It asked her to complete diary sheets so it could build a case to support legal action.
From both parties’ accounts of events the landlord met with the resident on 13 October 2023. It confirmed to us there was no record of this meeting and no evidence it conducted a risk assessment for her or gave her an action plan about how it would address the reported ASB. Neither is there evidence these had been in place before this meeting. This was not in line with its ASB policy or good practice around handling ASB.
The resident consistently sent the landlord completed ASB diaries from 1 November 2023 to March 2024. She recorded multiple incidents from the neighbour including shouting, loud music, cannabis use and large numbers of visitors causing nuisance. Its ASB policy says these are types of behaviour it is likely to consider ASB. There is no evidence it communicated with her during this time to explain what action it had taken, or intended to take, based on these. Had it completed an action plan this would have set out an arrangement for regular contact.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 29 December 2023 explaining it had continued to receive evidence of them perpetrating ASB since its final warning and it would be serving them with a NOSP. The resident said it only took formal action after she got her local MP involved in December 2023. From the records we have seen no evidence of correspondence between the MP and the landlord or any indication this was a factor in its decision. It acted in line with what it said it would do in its final warning letter of 20 September 2023 and within a reasonable timescale of receiving evidence of the ASB. As such it took reasonable and proportionate action in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord served the neighbour with its NOSP on 11 January 2024. From its account of events to us the court hearing was originally scheduled for April 2024 but was adjourned as the neighbour’s circumstances “had significantly changed”. Whilst this was not within its control there is no evidence it updated the resident about what was happening. This was not in line with its ASB policy which said it should maintain regular contact and provide updates as the case progresses. Given the resident was continuing to report ASB there is also no evidence it revisited creating a risk assessment or action plan to mitigate the impact or manage her expectations.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to update her about the legal case until 25 July 2024 when it told her it had a court date for 21 August 2024. It advised her the case would likely be adjourned so the neighbour could make a defence. She continued to request updates and provide completed ASB diaries on 9 September 2024 and 2 October 2024. Though the resident told it the ASB was “getting too much to handle” there is no evidence it updated her at this time or considered how it could mitigate the impact of the reported ASB on her as it should have in line with its policy.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord’s response on 4 November 2024 said the case had been heard in court in August 2024 which ordered for “actions to be taken” which were still outstanding. It gave no explanation to her of what these were. We have not seen evidence of a court hearing in August 2024 though it provided records of a court hearing on 23 October 2024 which was adjourned for the neighbour to provide a defence. Though, as set out previously, we cannot comment on the court’s decision the landlord should have given her a meaningful explanation and updated her.
The landlord stage 2 response said the case had been to court on 21 January 2025 and had been adjourned until 16 April 2025. From its explanation to us both of these hearings were adjourned as the neighbour had not served a defence. It contacted her on 15 April 2025 to ask if the neighbour’s behaviour had improved. She responded on the same day to provide copies of ASB diaries from December 2024 to 10 April 2025. There is no evidence it responded to her or considered if it needed to take any further action in line with its ASB policy for her ongoing reports.
The resident requested further updates from the landlord on 12 June 2025, 9 July 2025 and 11 October 2025 and provided completed ASB diaries. There is no evidence it responded until 13 October 2025 when it advised her the legal process was ongoing and it was waiting for a new court date. There is no evidence it responded to her about the ongoing ASB she was reporting at the time.
The landlord told us as part of our investigation it is still waiting for the court date and the legal case is ongoing. It also said it would be meeting with the resident on 22 December 2025 to discuss her further reports of ASB and to create a risk assessment and action plan. We have not seen any explanation of why it did not do this prior to us investigating her complaint. As such there has been a period of approximately 2 years where it failed to regularly contact her or respond to her ongoing reports of ASB. We recognise the time the legal proceedings have taken are not within its control. However, there is no evidence it has assessed if it would be proportionate to take other action its ASB policy says it will consider (such as an injunction) whilst the legal case is ongoing. These were significant failings.
The landlord accepted as part of its complaint responses it delayed progressing the case until August 2024 which it said were due to staff shortages. While it apologised and upheld her complaint, it did not provide any remedy or redress. It also failed to acknowledge the later gaps in its communication and failed to adhere to its ASB policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 October 2024. There is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint or contacted her to define the complaint before it issued its response. This was not consistent with the requirements of its policy or the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024, 23 working days after the resident made her complaint. This exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the delay or provide any explanation for it as part of its response.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s stage 1 response it said its understanding of the resident’s complaint was that she had been reporting ASB for 2 years and she was unhappy with its handling of this. However, its response only referred to events after it served the NOSP to the neighbour in January 2024. It did not respond to her concerns about how it had handled the reported ASB in the first year of the neighbour’s tenancy or explain any reason why it would not be responding to this. It also did not acknowledge her complaint about believing it treated her unfairly due to her ethnicity. As such it did not address all the points from the complaint as it was required to in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted in general terms there had been delays due to staffing shortages. It apologised for this and provided contact details for its housing officer for her to obtain updates on the case. It said it was upholding her complaint however it did not say what action it would take to put things right. This was not consistent with the Code. It should have provided clear reasons why it was upholding her complaint and how it would remedy the situation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2024. It did not acknowledge her escalation request or contact her to understand why she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. This was not consistent with the requirements of its policy or the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 18 March 2025, 75 working days after she escalated her complaint. This significantly exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge or explain this delay in its response.
The content of the landlord’s stage 2 response was again focussed on the action it had taken to progress the legal action against the neighbour following the NOSP. Though it responded to her concern that it had treated her differently due to her ethnicity it did not address its handling of the reported ASB before the NOSP or explain why it would not be responding. As such it did not address all points from her complaint as it was required to in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 also partly upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis of delays in progressing her case. Though it apologised for this it did not say what action it had or would take to put things right. As such its stage 2 response was not consistent with the expectations of the Code.

Learning

There is no evidence the landlord created key documents such as an action plan or risk assessment to manage the ASB case the resident reported. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not keep records of its only meeting with the resident in relation to her ASB case. It is important it keeps a robust record of contact and of actions taken on ASB cases. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

There is limited evidence to show how the landlord kept the resident updated about her ASB case or the legal action it had taken against the neighbour in relation to this. We acknowledge that legal proceedings can be lengthy. However, it is important that landlords communicate with victims of ASB during these times to manage their expectations as well as to address any ongoing issues or risks.