London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202323207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323207

Tower Hamlets Homes

14 May 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 leaseholder 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment against the leaseholder from her neighbour.

Background

The leaseholder purchased the lease from the landlord, a housing association, in November 2011. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor of a purpose-built block. The leaseholder does not live at the property and holds a licence to run a house of multiple occupancy in the flat. She accepts 3 tenants at a time. We will refer to the tenants as ‘sub-tenants’ in this report.
Between August 2022 and February 2023, the leaseholder’s downstairs neighbour reported noise nuisance on more than 10 occasions. They said that the sub-tenants were “stomping” around, slamming doors, dropping belongings, and playing music loudly. On 13 February 2023 the landlord visited and said that there was no evidence of any noise transference concerns.
On 24 March 2023 two noise officers visited to investigate a report of loud music playing in the leaseholder’s property. Records state that the officers monitored the noise from outside the property and asked the sub-tenants to turn off the music, which they did. There are conflicting accounts on this visit as the landlord stated that the sub-tenants were confrontational and argumentative but other records say they turned the music off after 3 minutes.
On 4 April 2023 the leaseholder asked the landlord for the evidence against her sub-tenants. She also made her own report of harassment from the neighbour. She asked the landlord to assist her with the ASB she and her sub-tenants had received from the neighbour and told it how the situation had affected her mental and emotional health for over 10 years. The landlord acknowledged receipt of her report and reiterated the noise report from 24 March 2023.
On 11 April 2023 the landlord told the leaseholder that she would need to submit a formal request to access the ASB investigation records relating to her sub-tenants, and recommended she seek legal advice as she had previously expressed a wish to take legal action against the neighbour.
The leaseholder made a complaint to the landlord the following day about its handling of ASB from her neighbour. It provided its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023, which included the following:
1. It had responded to a complaint regarding a similar issue in 2021 and enclosed a copy of the response.
2. It did not have copies of ASB reports between 2011 and 2020. It did not say what happened to these records.
3. It was investigating an active noise complaint against her sub-tenants, and its neighbourhood officers would complete a noise test.
4. It did not uphold her complaint regarding harassment from her neighbour.
The landlord completed a noise transference test on 5 May 2023; however, the leaseholder and landlord have differing viewpoints on what took place during this test. During this appointment, the leaseholder said that she tried to mediate with the neighbour, but they became aggressive towards her. She said this was witnessed by 3 of the landlord’s staff members and one intervened. The landlord’s records state that it witnessed “tension, disagreement, and disputatious comments” but did not attribute this to any specific party.
On 15 May 2023 the leaseholder informed the landlord that her sub-tenants reported that the neighbour had come to their front door to complain and was recording them. The leaseholder states that the landlord told her that the neighbour was entitled to complain about noise. The landlord’s records from 23 May 2023 show that it opened an ASB case regarding the leaseholder’s reports of harassment from the neighbour; however, this was later shown as withdrawn by the leaseholder.
The leaseholder escalated her complaint on 25 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 16 June 2023. In its stage 2 response dated 3 July 2023, the landlord did not uphold the leaseholder’s complaint. It advised the leaseholder to make a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to access the ASB records for the property. It stated that there was an ongoing investigation and that it was hopeful that a mediation session would resolve the issues.
A mediation session took place between the leaseholder, the neighbour, and a mediator on 2 October 2023. The mediator concluded that the best option was for the leaseholder and neighbour to set up a WhatsApp group so that reports would be made directly to the leaseholder. She was unhappy with this outcome as she had previously informed the landlord that she felt harassed by the neighbour. The mediator suggested that the landlord arrange independent inspections at both properties to determine whether noise transference was contributing to the issues.
The leaseholder has asked us to investigate as she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and harassment from her neighbour. At the time of this report, the leaseholder has confirmed that there are no ongoing ASB issues or noise complaints. She attributes this to her sub-tenants going out of their way to make as little noise as possible as they are intimidated by the neighbour. She said she does not feel that it is reasonable to expect this from her sub-tenants as they are unable to go about their daily lives without fear of harassment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Based on the evidence we have seen, the ASB has been ongoing intermittently for approximately 11 years and started when the leaseholder lived at the property with her family. In 2020 the situation escalated, and the frequency of noise reports increased. The Ombudsman considers it fair and reasonable to only investigate complaints which were raised with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. In this case, the leaseholder made her complaint in April 2023. We will therefore consider any events which took place from April 2022 onwards. However, all evidence supplied by both parties from before this period has been considered and may be referenced contextually.
This investigation will not consider the landlord’s interactions with the sub-tenants, as it does not have a landlord-tenant relationship with them. Instead, we will consider how it handled the leaseholder’s concerns regarding ASB from the neighbour and how it communicated with her regarding all aspects of the ASB.
This Service recognises that the concerns the leaseholder has reported have caused her distress. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of ASB and harassment from her neighbour

The landlord’s ASB policy states that harassment can include repeated and unfounded complaints against another resident or group of residents and uninvited visits to someone’s home. It also says:
1. When it receives a report, the landlord will respond within agreed timescales and agree in writing a proposed action and communication plan.
2. It will monitor incidences of ASB and keep appropriate records.
3. It will maintain comprehensive and up to date records of complaints and contact with the victim, perpetrator, witnesses, and other agencies.
The leaseholder has told this Service that the stress and anxiety caused by this issue has “severely impacted her personal well-being and professional life.” She said that she felt as though she and her sub-tenants are being persecuted by her landlord, while her neighbours were not being challenged. She also told us that whenever she places new tenants in the property, she worries about whether they will be treated poorly.
The leaseholder provided the landlord with a comprehensive report with a timeline of instances of harassment from her neighbour towards herself and her sub-tenants. She also stated that the neighbour had contacted other tenants in the building, in what she believed was an attempt to generate additional complaints.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the report but there is no evidence it read it or took any action. Instead, it immediately responded to say that it had received further reports of ASB against her sub-tenants. The landlord should have taken the leaseholder’s reports seriously and opened an ASB case.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord approached the neighbour about the leaseholder’s reports of harassment. It did not complete an action plan or communication plan, and did not contact the leaseholder or the sub-tenants to discuss the issues they were experiencing.
The landlord’s approach to logging ASB reports was inconsistent. In some communications, it told the leaseholder she had to report everything as she was the leaseholder, and in others it told her that she could not report it as she did not reside at the property. The landlord should have been clear about how sub-tenants could report issues, and whether it would communicate directly with them.
Throughout the period investigated, the neighbourhood officer changed several times which led to confusion for the leaseholder. The leaseholder said that on 17 April 2023 the landlord told her that the previous officer was removed as the neighbour accused them of racism. We have not been provided evidence of this; however, we have seen evidence that on 29 June 2023 the landlord told her that it appointed the new neighbourhood officer to “incorporate fresh observations and for the avoidance of any misgivings by any of the parties”. Based on the landlord’s records, however, it actually only appointed new officers for the noise test, but the neighbourhood officer remained the same. This was poorly communicated to the leaseholder and as a result, caused confusion about who she was dealing with. This impacted the leaseholder’s trust in the landlord.
The landlord told the leaseholder that given the number of complaints regarding her sub-tenants, it would arrange for “professional witness scheme” noise recording equipment to support its investigation. It did not provide further information about how this process would work. The leaseholder has told us that she felt that she and her sub-tenants were being “criminalised” by the landlord and was concerned about what this type of monitoring would entail. The landlord should have explained that the use of such equipment was standard in ASB cases and provided a detailed explanation about the process.
A lot of the noise described in the diaries and reports was household noise, such as walking, dropping items, and closing doors. However, the extent of the noise was subjective, and each party had a different viewpoint. The landlord should have used noise monitoring equipment as early as possible. This would have given it an unbiased viewpoint and enabled it to manage the situation effectively. It should also have measured the parties’ expectations about what sort of action it could take if it confirmed antisocial noise.
The leaseholder told the landlord that she would consider action against her sub-tenants if there was clear evidence that they were breaching their tenancy. While it told her of the reports from the neighbour, it did not provide audio or video recordings which proved that the noise was antisocial rather than natural noise transference. This made it difficult for the leaseholder to understand what action to take.
The council’s environmental health team sent a report to the landlord and leaseholder following their callout to the property in March 2023. While we cannot investigate the EH team’s handling of the visit, we note that in the subsequent report, the EH team used policing terminology to describe the sub-tenants. The landlord was not responsible for this; however, it is understandable that this contributed to the leaseholder feeling as though her sub-tenants were being unfairly criminalised as there was no need for such terminology.
The leaseholder requested mediation to improve the situation between the parties. The landlord arranged this with a third-party agency, but the proposed outcome of creating a WhatsApp group was not appropriate as the leaseholder had expressed how she felt harassed by the neighbour. Although the landlord was not privy to the content of the mediation sessions, once the leaseholder informed it of this outcome and her feelings about it, it should have considered or discussed with her what alternative support it could provide, such as further mediation.
The noise test was attended by both the landlord and the council’s environmental health department. In a follow up email after the test, the landlord stated that it did not measure decibels, did not do any scientific testing, and “did not purport to be accurate.” It conducted the test from a hallway next to an open window rather than from the property of the leaseholder.
This was confusing for the leaseholder, as she was being asked to consider action against her sub-tenants; however, the landlord had stated that its test for noise was not accurate. She questioned this further, but the landlord did not give a clear response. It is reasonable that the leaseholder wanted clear and accurate evidence of any tenancy breaches, as she was acting as a landlord and would need to ensure any action she took was defensible.
Throughout the period investigated, there was consistent debate regarding when and if the sub-tenants could play music. The neighbour complained on several occasions about music after 8pm; however, the sub-tenants believed that they could play music until 11pm. The leaseholder asked the EH team for clarification, and they responded that music should be always played at a reasonable level. However, given the repeated complaints from the neighbour, it is not evident that this guidance was shared with them to measure their expectations. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the parties’ relationship.
In summary, the landlord focused on the ASB reports against the leaseholder’s sub-tenants and did not acknowledge the leaseholder’s concerns. It did not open an ASB case despite the leaseholder providing a timeline of events. It said that it did not have copies of historic ASB reports; however, it later informed her to submit a FoI request. The landlord was not sympathetic to the leaseholder’s experience, and did not consider the impact that the situation had on her and her family. It had a disjointed approach throughout, and at times would not take ASB reports from her as she did not reside at the property. Given these failings, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and the leaseholder’s reports of harassment from her neighbour.
An order for £800 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder. This is made up of £200 for the landlord’s failure to appropriately investigate her reports of harassment, £300 for the time and trouble chasing the issues, and £300 for distress and inconvenience. This order is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the leaseholder and where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.
Given the sub-tenants in the property are on short leases, there will be frequent changes of tenants. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider how it will approach any future reports from either the neighbour or the leaseholder, and how it will communicate with any sub-tenants.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there wasmaladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and the leaseholder’s reports of harassment.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the leaseholder for the failings identified in this case. This includes but is not limited to, its failure to act on her reports of harassment from the neighbour, its disjointed approach to the ASB reporting, and its failure to consider the impact the situation had on her. A copy of the apology must be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the leaseholder £800 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience associated with its handling of her reports of harassment. This should be paid directly to the leaseholder and proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman.
3. Contact the leaseholder to make clear whether sub-tenants at the address can make direct reports to the landlord of any future ASB concerns from any neighbours and make it clear what the process is for either party to report ASB.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider what actions it will take if any ASB reports of a similar nature are logged in future. This should include a discussion with the leaseholder to confirm how and when it will inform her of any reports against her sub-tenants.