London Borough of Waltham Forest (202500361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500361

London Borough of Waltham Forest

30 September 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and assault by a neighbour and her contractor.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the neighbour using the communal area for building works and to store items during renovation works.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed flat within a block containing 6 flats.
The resident has vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic; this means that he requires communications to be ‘autism-friendly’. The resident has explained that this means no complex written communications and he has requested the landlord and this Service ring him before sending any written communication.
The resident phoned the landlord various times on 31 March 2025 to report that building work had been in progress in his neighbour’s flat since 8am that morning, which he said was causing noise. He also said that the contractor was placing building materials in the communal area and was using the communal area as a workshop. He added that the contractor was propping open the main entrance door to the building. The resident requested the landlord to send someone urgently to his block to observe the issues first hand. During the final phone call on 31 March 2025, the resident said the neighbour had been violent and threatening towards him, which he said he had reported to the police. He provided the landlord with the police CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) number.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 April 2025 in which he raised general concerns about the landlord’s phone system and its contact centre. However, he stated that his complaint was about one of his neighbours and the specific issues he was complaining about were:
1. The neighbour was creating a nuisance by carrying out building works in her flat from 8am.
2. The workmen carrying out the work in the neighbour’s flat had disconnected the door closer to her front door so that the door was continuously open during the works. The resident said this was generating noise and dust in his property and, in his view, disconnecting the door closer was also a fire hazard.
3. The resident said one of the workmen had used threatening and abusive behaviour. He included a link to video footage showing an altercation between him, the workman and the neighbour.
4. The resident referred to a previous incident involving the neighbour and said the landlord had not contacted the police to report a public order offence on that occasion either.
5. He believed he had been the subject of discrimination because he said the landlord had previously responded to issues raised by other residents within 15 minutes.
The resident wrote to the landlord several times between 2 and 8 April 2025 regarding his neighbour. He said the work carried out by his neighbour had caused noise, nuisance and he had been ‘shoved’ by his neighbour. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 April 2025 in which it stated the following:
1. It had investigated the complaint about the neighbour in April 2025 and no further action was considered necessary. The work was temporary in nature and of minimal impact.
2. The neighbour had assured the landlord that the items in the communal area would be removed and had apologised for the inconvenience.
3. The landlord had investigated the resident’s reports of threatening and abusive behaviour by the neighbour on 2 April 2025. It had contacted the neighbour who had refuted the allegations and made counter-allegations of abuse by the resident.
4. The landlord said it was the resident’s responsibility to report criminal offences to the police. However, it said it had submitted a police disclosure form to check whether they were planning any action or there were any safeguarding concerns.
5. The landlord said it did not plan to take any further action at that stage due to a lack of evidence. It would, however, continue to monitor the situation.
6. The landlord said it had not found any evidence it had had been potentially racist in its actions.
7. The landlord explained that its Customer Resolution Centre and phone system were designed to cope with large call volumes. The focus of the team was on dealing with incoming calls. Service areas were responsible for dealing with complaints.
8. The landlord said it had followed its processes in dealing with the allegations about the neighbour and therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
9. The landlord confirmed that there was a system alert against the resident’s records showing he had Autism and Asperger’s.
The resident contacted us on 29 April 2025 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. We then wrote to the landlord on the same day and requested it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 because:
1. The resident said the landlord had not contacted him to discuss his reports of ASB and his allegations of assaults and abuse by his neighbour. He also said no one had visited to verify the facts or checked the evidence before issuing the complaint response.
2. He said his flat was filled with dust because of his neighbour’s renovation works.
3. He said no one had called him or visited him from the landlord to offer support in relation to the alleged assaults.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 June 2025 in which it stated the following:
1. In terms of the resident’s reports of nuisance and failures to comply with tenancy/fire regulations caused by his neighbour’s building works, the landlord considered the matter resolved. It confirmed that the neighbour had apologised for the inconvenience caused.
2. The landlord said it had investigated the resident’s reports of threatening and abusive behaviour as soon as he had raised his concerns.
3. Under its ASB policy, it considered there had been insufficient evidence to continue the investigation due to the resident’s failure to provide evidence to support his allegations.
4. The landlord said it had also considered the neighbour’s counter-allegations.
5. The landlord concluded that it had addressed all of the resident’s concerns at stage 1.
The resident contacted us on 6 June 2025 and disputed the information in the landlord’s complaint responses. He said the items had not been cleared from the communal area within a day of making contact. He believed the landlord had not checked the communal area properly and he did not consider the landlord had supported him when he had reported the altercation with his neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his stage 1 complaint dated 1 April 2025, the resident said he wanted the landlord to investigate “potential racist discrimination” on its part. We cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. This is a legal matter that would have to be determined by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to the Equality Act and to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and assault by a neighbour

The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy state:
1. “You must not use any domestic machinery or DIY equipment in such a way or at such times (i.e. after 10pm and not before 8am) that it causes a nuisance and annoyance to your neighbours”.
2. You must not harass anybody or allow any person living with you or visiting you to harass anybody in the locality of your home. Harassment includes…verbal abuse or insults”.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy states:
1. ASB is defined as:
  1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
  2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
  3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
2. Noise between 11pm-7am may be considered ASB.
Our role is not to establish whether the reported ASB or assault happened or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the assault was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In his stage 1 complaint of 1 April 2025, the resident said his neighbour was creating a nuisance by carrying out building works from 8am. He said that the neighbour had removed the self-closing mechanism from her front door so the door could be kept open and this was generating dust and noise. He also said that the neighbour had been threatening and abusive towards him.
In response to his email, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April 2025, which was 3 days after receiving his email. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that it will respond to low or medium risk reports of ASB within 5 working days and its website says it will get back to residents within 3 working days. The landlord had therefore written to the resident within a reasonable timescale to advise of the action it had taken in response to his concerns.
The landlord stated in its response of 4 April 2025 that do-it-yourself (DIY) works were permitted within reasonable hours of the day. The landlord’s statement was reasonable as it was consistent with its tenancy conditions, which state that DIY equipment should not be used after 10pm or before 8am. It was also consistent with its ASB Policy which states that noise between 11pm and 7pm may be considered ASB. In this case, the resident had stated in his complaint that the neighbour had started work at 8am. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider that the DIY work was being carried out during the hours permitted in its tenancy conditions and not during the hours that would be classed as ASB under its policy.
The landlord stated in its email that it had spoken to the neighbour about the DIY works and she had acknowledged that the operatives working in her property had been propping open the main entrance door of the block. She apologised for this and said it would not happen again. It was reasonable and proportionate that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about the works and about the operatives propping open the main door as this was a security risk for other residents.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 April 2025 and said it had investigated the resident’s complaint in April 2025 and no further action was considered necessary. It said it had spoken to the neighbour who had apologised for the inconvenience that the works had caused. As the neighbour was permitted to carry out DIY works under her tenancy agreement, it was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to her about the resident’s concerns regarding dust and noise.
In terms of the resident’s reports of threatening and abusive behaviour by the neighbour, the landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that the resident was responsible for reporting criminal matters to the police, however, it confirmed that it had requested information from the police regarding the incident.
The resident had stated in his complaint (and in later emails) that the neighbour had committed an offence under the Public Order Act and he had reported the matter to the police. As the police are responsible for investigating reports of crimes, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the police to take the lead in relation to any investigations into the incidents. The landlord’s records show that it had requested information from the police on 2 April 2025 regarding their investigations. The landlord had therefore requested the information promptly the day after receiving the resident’s written complaint.
The landlord also stated in its stage 1 reply that its Tenancy Officer had made contact with the neighbour who had refuted the allegations and made counter allegations. It was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about the incidents as part of its own investigations into the reported assault while it was waiting for feedback from the police. The landlord’s records also state that it had arranged for a Tenancy Officer to contact the resident regarding the incident. However, we have not seen any evidence that the Tenancy Officer or other landlord staff contacted the resident to discuss his concerns. This was inappropriate as it had spoken to the neighbour and therefore for balance, we would expect it to have also spoken to the resident as part of its investigation.
The landlord’s stage 1 reply did not address the resident’s point about the neighbour disconnecting the self-closing mechanism on her front door, which he said had increased the noise and dust issues because the door was kept open during the works. The landlord’s lack of response on these matters is assessed below under the landlord’s complaints handling.
Overall, we have found that the landlord took the following reasonable steps in its response to the resident’s report of ASB and assault by a neighbour and her contractor:
1. The landlord replied within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s initial email outlining his concerns.
2. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect the police to lead the investigation into the alleged criminal behaviour by the neighbour/contractor.
3. The landlord submitted an official information request form to the police for information regarding their investigations.
4. The landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the resident’s allegations.
5. The landlord had decided that no action was necessary in relation to the DIY works themselves as residents are permitted to carry out DIY during reasonable hours.
However, we have made a finding of service failure because the landlord did not attempt to speak to the resident regarding his reports of ASB and assault by his neighbour. The resident raised this point in his stage 2 complaint and said it made him feel that he was being treated differently to other residents. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50. The amount reflects the distress experienced by the resident in not being contacted but takes into account that the police were primarily responsible for investigating the alleged assault and for maintaining appropriate contact with the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the neighbour using the communal area for building works and to store items during renovation works

The landlord’s ‘Items in Communal Areas/Grounds Policy’ states:
1. “Our Fire Safety Policy (September 2019) states that it is mandatory that all escape routes are kept completely clear at all times”.
2. “Combustible materials must not be left in escape routes even if these claim to be of fire-retardant constitution, nor any other articles that might provide any obstruction. This includes but not limited to… building and/or DIY materials”.
3. “Once the items are identified, the Place Officer should make attempts to identify the perpetrator via door knocking and request that the resident removes the items immediately”.
The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy state:
1. “You must keep all shared areas, including all entrances, stairways, corridors and landings free from obstructions”.
The resident has submitted several video recordings from his video doorbell, which we have reviewed as part of our investigation. However, our role is not to decide whether the resident’s neighbour was using the communal area for building works or to store items during the renovation works. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the neighbour was misusing the communal area was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
As part of his stage 1 complaint dated 1 April 2025, the resident advised the landlord that the operatives working in his neighbour’s flat were blocking the fire escape by storing items there. He later added in an email dated 4 April that the operatives were using the fire escape area for “building works”.
The landlord’s records state that on 2 April 2025, the Tenancy Officer had asked the caretaker to inspect the communal stairs in the resident’s block and to take photos of anything stored there. As the resident had reported that the neighbour was storing items in the communal area, it was reasonable that it had asked the caretaker to inspect the area and take photos. The resident later disputed that the caretaker had checked the area properly and this is addressed under the landlord’s complaint handling below.
The landlord’s records also show that it had spoken to the neighbour on 2 April 2025 and she had explained that she was having renovation work done and that any items currently in the communal area would be removed “in the next few days”. It is a condition of tenancy that residents must keep shared areas free from obstructions. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about removing the items from the communal area shortly after receiving the resident’s complaint. The evidence indicates that the items were placed directly on the landing outside the neighbour’s flat and did not obstruct the resident’s to or from his property. Nevertheless, the resident had reported a potential breach of the landlord’s tenancy conditions and therefore it was right for the landlord to act.
The resident said that the operatives had been using the communal area outside the neighbour’s property to carry out “building works”. The evidence indicates that this involved cutting tiles, wood and other materials. Although the landlord did not directly address these concerns in its complaints responses, it had received assurances from the neighbour that the area would be cleared of all materials in the next few days and it considered that no further action was needed (as stated in its stage 1 response).As the Tenancy Officer had spoken to the neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his advice that he had received assurances from the neighbour and no further action was necessary.
The landlord stated in its email of 4 April 2025 that the caretaker had inspected the block and confirmed it was clear of any obstructions. The resident replied on the same day and disputed this based on footage from his video doorbell. The landlord did not address this point in its stage 1 or stage 2 replies and therefore we have assessed this omission in the landlord’s complaints handling below.
Overall, we have found that the landlord took proportionate action in relation to the neighbour’s use of the communal area to store and work on items because:
1. The landlord promptly contacted the neighbour about her use of the communal area and was given assurances that the area would be cleared within a short timescale.
2. The landlord arranged for the caretaker to check the area on 4 April 2025.
3. The landlord was aware that the items in the communal area were linked to the renovation work being carried by the neighbour and therefore the situation was temporary as stated in its stage 1 response.
4. Following his conversation with the neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its Tenancy Officer that no further action was necessary.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and the landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. It will respond in writing to all stage 1 complaints within 10 workings days of the complaint being logged.
2. If the landlord is unable to respond within 10 working days, it will inform the resident as soon as possible if an extension is required and give the reason(s) why. Any extension will extend to no later than an additional 10 working days from the original deadline.
3. If the complaint has not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, they can ask the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
4. The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.
5. If, for any reason, the landlord needs more than 20 working days to respond to the complaint, it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for its response. Any extension will be no longer than 20 working days unless there is a good reason, which will be explained to the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 April 2025. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April 2025 regarding his complaint and acknowledged his complaint on 7 April 2025. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days, which was appropriate.
The landlord sent its formal stage 1 response on 16 April 2025, which was 7 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
We contacted the landlord on 29 April 2025 to ask for the resident’s complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 12 May 2025, which was 8 working days after receiving the request from us to escalate the complaint. This was outside the 5 working day timescale stipulated in our Complaint Handling Code for acknowledging complaints and was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 June 2025, which was14 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
In terms of the landlord’s response times, the landlord was slightly late with its stage 2 acknowledgement, however, the delay was minimal and we have not seen any evidence that this caused detriment to the resident. Therefore, we have not identified this as a service failing and have concluded that it responded within reasonable timescales.
However, we have found that the landlord’s complaint responses did not address some of the points raised by the resident during the complaints process. Its stage 1 reply did not address the resident’s point about the neighbour disconnecting the self-closing mechanism on her front door. He said this had increased the noise and dust issues because the door was kept open during the works and was a fire risk. The landlord also did not address the additional concerns he had raised on 4 April 2025 regarding:
1. The use of the communal area/fire escape area for “building works”.
2. The resident’s concerns about whether the caretaker had properly checked the communal area for obstructions.
3. His concerns about inaccuracies in the landlord’s email of 4 April 2025.
It was inappropriate that the landlord had not addressed all of the points included in his complaint. Our Complaint Handling Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. It also states: “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued”. In this case, the above issues raised by the resident were linked to his initial complaint and therefore should have been incorporated into the stage 1 reply.
The landlord also missed an opportunity to correct these omissions when sending its stage 2 response, particularly as the resident had raised some of these points again in his stage 2 complaint. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s failure to address all of the points raised by the resident during the complaints process had caused him frustration and additional time and effort in raising the issues again. We have therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to reflect the frustration and additional time and effort experienced by him as a result of the landlord not addressing all elements of his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and assault by a neighbour and her contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of the neighbour using the communal area for building works and to store items during renovation works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation, comprised of:

£50 for its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and assault by a neighbour and her contractor.
£50 for its complaint handling.