London Borough of Sutton (202515451)

Background

1. The resident lives in a high-rise block. She complained about noises and smells coming from her upstairs neighbour. The resident had recently moved into her property and previously experienced homelessness. She wanted the landlord to understand the impact the neighbour’s behaviour had on her and to resolve this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy. It sometimes communicated in a dismissive and obstructive manner and kept poor records, which prevented a full understanding of how it responded. These failures caused avoidable distress to a vulnerable resident and were not adequately addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses.
5. The landlord repeatedly failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaints and escalation requests, and it assigned the Housing Officer – who was the subject of the complaint – to investigate it, creating a conflict of interest. It provided an interim response that did not meet the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code and delayed its stage 2 response for 1 year.

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.

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.

6. The resident said the reported incidents caused her distress and anxiety. Our role is not to decide whether ASB happened or who was responsible. Instead, we look at how the landlord responded to the reports and whether it followed the right processes and good practice.
7. The landlord opened an ASB case in January 2024 following reports of the resident being assaulted. The landlord completed some appropriate actions in line with its ASB policy, including an action plan, liaison with the police and installation of a Ring doorbell. However, a risk assessment was not fully completed in line with the policy and related template
8. There was a pattern of dismissive and obstructive communication from the landlord’s housing officer. An example of this was a failure to proactively work in partnership with the resident’s support worker during summer 2024. The landlord said it would only accept a pen signed consent to share information form and would not accept other reasonable options presented (for example verbal consent in a 3-way online meeting). This unnecessarily delayed the support worker from sharing their concerns by 6 weeks.
9. Record keeping failures mean it is not possible to assess how the landlord responded to the concerns raised by the support worker.
10. The resident reported a terrible smell “like dead bodies”, noise and abusive language from the upstairs neighbour from mid-2024. She repeated these reports and the significant impact this was having on her as someone who had recently experienced homelessness. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will consider hate crime based on protected characteristics and classes misuse of communal areas, verbal abuse and serious and persistent noise nuisance as ASB. It failed to follow this policy. It did not open an ASB case and did not carry out an assessment within 2 working days in line with its policy.
11. The landlord took some appropriate actions to work directly with the neighbour, particularly in late 2024 when it also sent a warning letter to them. However, it did not open an ASB case for the resident and did not consider what actions it could take in line with its policy to collect evidence and mitigate the impact on her. This may have included creating an ASB action plan for the resident, offering her noise recording equipment or asking her more about the impact of the offensive language and smell.
12. The resident showed understanding about the complexity of the situation, and the support needs of her neighbour. However, she explained she was very distressed by the ASB and the impact on her vulnerabilities. She reported the situation to the police, social care and her support worker. The landlord did not consider her vulnerabilities in its response and failed to follow its ASB policy. The resident asked about sound proofing and the landlord did not respond to this request.
13. The landlord explained some of the actions it was taking in its September 2024 stage 1 response but did not fully investigate the resident’s complaint and did not acknowledge its failures or put things right.
14. The landlord took some steps to put things right in its November 2025 stage 2 response. These included opening an ASB case and stating it would take actions in line with its ASB policy. It offered £50 compensation for the time taken to resolve the issue. This is not in line with our remedies guidance given the adverse impact caused over an extended period. We have ordered additional compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the impact on her vulnerabilities. We have also ordered the landlord to provide evidence of the actions it promised at stage 2.

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s professionalism and handling of her reports of ASB in June 2024.
    2. Acknowledged a stage 1 complaint in line with its policy in September 2024.
    3. Responded to the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. However, the complaint concerned the actions of the Housing Officer. The landlord appointed that Housing Officer as the staff member to investigate the complaint. This was a failure to take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
    4. Failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation requests in September 2024, November 2024 and March 2025.
    5. Provided an additional response on 16 January 2025. This was not compliant with the Code as it did not state the stage of the complaint or how the resident could escalate further. It did not signpost to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
    6. In its stage 2 response, it said it had not responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint because the Housing Officer was on leave. The response on 16 January 2025 seems to contradict this explanation. This case shows that relying on one member of staff to both undertake housing actions and investigate complaints can compromise impartiality and quality of service.
    7. Delayed responding to the stage 2 response for over a year until November 2025.
16. These delays and record keeping failures likely caused an adverse impact to the resident as she had to repeatedly chase her complaint and was obstructed in receiving a response that was compliant with the Code. She reported that the delays led to a lack of trust in the landlord. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the failures outlined above and its £50 compensation offer was not enough, particularly given the significant complaint handling delay period. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

ASB

17. The landlord internally discussed not treating the resident’s reports under its ASB policy but did not record how it had made this assessment. The landlord should consider reviewing why this occurred in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s records were incomplete and did not record all communication or visits with the resident.

Communication

19. There was a pattern of the landlord responding to the resident in a dismissive and unempathetic manner. There were several occasions where the landlord’s actions were obstructive and prevented the resident from escalating her complaint further. The landlord should consider how it can ensure responses to residents are customer friendly and empathetic.