London Borough of Wandsworth (202437552)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202437552 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Wandsworth |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
21 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a flat. She told the landlord that her neighbour was leaving rubbish outside their property and in the communal area leading to her door. She also reported noise nuisance and said the neighbour had intimidated her. During the complaint process, the resident had a representative who acted on her behalf. For this report, we refer to both of them as “the resident.”
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- The landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Reports of ASB
- There was no evidence that the landlord carried out certain commitments it made in its final response, and it did not consider completing a risk assessment at an early stage.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s offer of compensation was a fair and proportionate way to put right the detriment caused to the resident by its delayed stage 1 response.
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:
|
No later than 19 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Action plan and risk assessment order The landlord must contact the resident and create an action plan to address any ongoing ASB issues. The action plan must also identify any concerns relating to the cleanliness of the communal areas and set out the steps the landlord will take to address these. The landlord must also complete a risk assessment. A copy of the action plan and risk assessment must be provided to both the resident and us. |
No later than 19 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should review the functionality and reliability of communal CCTV systems to ensure they are fit for purpose. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the review. |
|
The landlord should consider adopting more flexible evidence‑gathering methods, such as diary sheets, where noise issues are intermittent. |
|
The landlord should pay the resident £400 in compensation, as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not already done so. We found reasonable redress for its complaint handling based on this being paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 November 2024 |
The resident made a formal complaint. She said her neighbour played loud audio after 11pm and into the early hours of the morning. She believed the landlord should give her a recording device to capture the noise and said she had asked for this several times. She also reported that in September 2024 the neighbour intimidated her, which left her feeling scared for her safety. She was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with this report, especially because the CCTV was not working on the days the incidents happened. The resident also said the neighbour deliberately dragged rubbish through the communal areas and left it outside her property. She felt the landlord was not doing enough to safeguard a vulnerable adult. |
|
09 June 2025 |
After the resident contacted us, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to issue a formal response to the complaint. |
|
24 June 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had no record of any noise nuisance reports after 17 November 2024. It explained that a previous Ombudsman determination did not require it to provide the resident with a recording device. It said that on 4 November 2024 it had spoken with the CCTV control room, and the camera at the main entrance was offline when the reported intimidation took place. It also said it was working with the police to understand their position on the incident. It explained that it had spoken to the neighbour about the rubbish on 2 October 2024. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s November 2024 complaint and offered £400 in compensation for this. It added that it would liaise with the CCTV manager to ensure the cameras in the block were working and asked all parties to consider mediation. |
|
1 July 2025 |
The resident escalated the complaint. She questioned why the landlord could not provide a recording device. She also asked what investigation had been carried out in response to her reports of threats, and whether the landlord had reviewed any other CCTV. In addition, she asked why there were no cameras on the lift landing or inside the lift. |
|
29 July 2025 |
The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said it needed to corroborate reports of noise nuisance either by speaking to other residents or by having its staff witness the noise. It explained that it was not its policy to provide recording devices, and that neighbour disputes had shown that doing so could make situations worse. It said it was not proportionate for it to review all other CCTV in the area, and that this would be a matter for the police. It confirmed that the cameras covering the block were now working. It also said it would write to the neighbour to remind them of their responsibility to dispose of waste properly, and that it would speak with its cleaning contractor about treating any stains. It asked the resident to contact it so it could arrange a home visit and carry out a risk assessment. It also said it would continue to liaise with the police. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident continued to believe the landlord should provide her with a recording device. She also felt it was pointless for the landlord to speak to other neighbours, as they lived on different floors and would not hear the noise. She added that there were still stains in the communal area. |
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 |
Reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- In May 2024, the resident reported a large build‑up of foul‑smelling rubbish outside her neighbour’s property. In response, the landlord inspected the area and found a small amount of residue where the rubbish bags had been left. The landlord then visited the neighbour and asked them to clear the remaining spillage. This action was a reasonable and proportionate initial response to the concern raised.
- During the same month, the resident also reported noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s correspondence confirmed that it attended the reports and assessed the noise as loud enough to amount to a statutory nuisance. After the resident made a second report later that day, the landlord issued the neighbour with a formal warning. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s noise and ASB procedures.
- In July 2025, the resident reported that her neighbour was leaving rubbish stains in the communal areas. She said the marks had an unpleasant smell and prevented her from opening her door. The landlord attended in response to the report. Although it did not detect any unpleasant odour, it observed stains outside both the resident’s and the neighbour’s doors. The landlord’s records show that it referred the issue to its cleaning team to address the following day. Given the circumstances, this response was proportionate and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and acted promptly.
- In September 2025, the resident reported that the noise and rubbish issues were ongoing. The landlord told the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour and reminded them to dispose of rubbish properly. However, there is no evidence to support this account. We have not seen any records showing that the landlord contacted the neighbour about these concerns. While it appears that some action was taken, the landlord should be able to evidence this. The absence of records points to issues in the landlord’s record‑keeping which we have identified as a learning point below.
- In the same month, the resident reported that the neighbour had intimidated her, which left her feeling frightened. She also stated that the incident would have been captured by the block’s CCTV cameras.
- The landlord did not take immediate action, which caused the resident some time and trouble, as she had to chase for an update in October 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that it attempted to review the CCTV footage. It later confirmed in writing to the resident, in early November 2024, that the CCTV camera was not operational at the time of the reported incidents. The resident remains concerned about the reliability of the CCTV system. And we have made a recommendation to address these concerns.
- In October 2024, the resident reported a constant grinding noise coming from the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s records show that it responded promptly to the report but did not hear any noise during its visit. It later confirmed in writing that, as it had not witnessed any noise, it would not be taking further action. The records also indicate that the landlord discussed the report with the neighbour. This approach was consistent with the landlord’s noise procedure.
- The resident told us that, although the landlord attempted to witness the noise, the disturbances occurred intermittently and usually stopped before anyone arrived. As a result, the resident felt that the landlord should provide her with a noise‑recording device. While we recognise the resident’s frustration, the landlord is not required to provide such equipment. Its final response clearly explained why it did not take this approach. Instead, the landlord’s decision to assess the noise by attending in person was consistent with its noise procedure.
- Nevertheless, given the resident’s concerns, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider adopting a more flexible approach to gathering evidence in cases of intermittent noise. This could include asking the resident to complete diary sheets or considering whether additional steps, such as liaising with Environmental Health, might help to build a clearer picture of the reported disturbances.
- While the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports was reasonable and broadly in line with its policies, it stated in its final response that it would write to the neighbour to remind them of their responsibility to dispose of household waste properly. It added it would liaise with its cleaning contractor about treating the staining. However, there is no evidence to show that these actions were carried out. This caused the resident frustration, as she told us that the area remained dirty, with ongoing staining and odours. She felt this continued to affect her living environment and her ability to sell her property.
- In its final response, the landlord also said it was committed to carrying out a home visit and completing a risk assessment, and it encouraged the resident to make contact to arrange this. However, it is unclear why this was not considered or progressed at an earlier stage, particularly following the resident’s reports of intimidation and threats around 9 months earlier. While there is no evidence that the delay caused significant detriment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a risk assessment sooner, given the nature of the allegations and the resident’s expressed concerns about her vulnerability and safety.
- While these failings were unlikely to have changed the overall outcome for the resident, they nonetheless amount to a service failure. We have therefore made orders to address these issues, and the landlord is expected to take appropriate account of the learning identified below.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
- In this case, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint made in November 2024. This caused the resident time and trouble, as she had to approach us for assistance. The landlord issued its stage 1 response more than 6 months later, which was significantly outside its policy timescales. The landlord apologised for this delay, identified learning, and offered £400 in compensation. It then issued its stage 2 response within its policy timescales.
- The landlord’s offer of compensation was consistent with our compensation guidance, which suggests awards of £100 or more where a failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. Overall, the landlord’s remedies were satisfactory in addressing the detriment caused by its delayed stage 1 response.
Learning
- The landlord should consider earlier risk assessments where residents report intimidation, threats, or concerns about their safety or vulnerability.
Knowledge information management (record–keeping)
- There were gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping. In this case, we have seen no evidence of contact with the police or copies of warning letters to the neighbour. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.
- The landlord should follow through on actions committed to in complaint responses and keep clear records to confirm completion.
Communication
- For the most part, the landlord’s communication was satisfactory. However, the landlord should ensure complaints are acknowledged and responded to within its policy timescales to avoid unnecessary delay and resident distress.