Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202218428)

Decision
Case ID	202218428
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough Of Greenwich
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

1. The resident was reporting noise disturbances from loud music and behaviours such as drug taking and littering from her upstairs neighbour from at least 2021. She was unhappy with how the landlord responded to these.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise transference and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise transference and ASB.
4. We found service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

In view of the above, we have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took some actions that were proportionate to the evidence available to it and in keeping with its ASB policy. However, it failed to demonstrate that it took all steps outlined in the policy to investigate the reports and communicate with the resident. The landlord also exceeded its complaints policy timescales at both stages causing a significant delay to the dispute resolution process. It failed to update her during this time leading her to seek assistance from this service.

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 provided by a senior member of its staff. 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 17 March 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £650, made up of: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in the handling of her ASB reports. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. It may deduct the award of £200 if it can show this has already been paid, leaving it to pay £450. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 March 2026
3	Directional order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss and record any current problems she is experiencing with her neighbour. It must show it has followed its new ASB policy and good neighbourhood guide in: Completing a risk assessment. Completing an action plan setting out what different actions to those taken previously it will take (e.g. mediation or inspecting the neighbour’s flooring) and share this with the resident. Explaining if it is not taking any further action and the reasons why (e.g. it has already completed different actions since the complaint process ended). It must provide evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 17 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2022	The resident complained that she had received no response to her reports of noise and ASB. She said the problem had been ongoing for 3 years and it was affecting her sleep.
19 January 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1. It stated that it had warned the resident’s neighbour about the noise levels and a consequence of breaching their tenancy agreement could be enforcement action. The landlord advised the resident’s emails and videos had not shown evidence of a nuisance. It confirmed it would continue to work with its community protection team (CPT) to consider if there was evidence of statutory noise.   The resident escalated her complaint the same day because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said her health was being affected from her neighbour’s behaviour, which included: Noises in unsociable hours. Drug taking. Dog fouling.
20 January 2023	The landlord confirmed it would investigate her complaint at stage 2 of its process.
12 January 2024	After contact from us, the landlord responded at stage 2. It advised it had identified no failings in its handling of the noise/ASB reports because it had: Liaised with partner agencies. Sent warning letters and visited the neighbour with other professionals. Taken a witness statement from her and was exploring taking enforcement action with its legal team. Not identified a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord acknowledged a failing in its handling of the complaint, apologised and awarded £200 compensation.
After the complaints process ended	The resident continued to make reports of noise intermittently in 2024 and 2025. When we asked for an update in mid-2025 the landlord advised us it had not received any further reports from the resident after June 2025 when it said it had sent a further warning letter to the neighbour.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and said the noise problems were still affecting her. She told us she has been caused a lot of distress and inconvenience from loss of sleep. The resident said she is seeking the landlord to take appropriate action to address the problem, which she advised in February 2026 is still ongoing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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	Noise/ASB reports
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

6. The resident said in her complaint that she had been experiencing noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour for 3 years. We have not seen reports from her that date back further than June 2021. The landlord did not also comment on this specifically in its responses, which is a failing we will address later in this report.
7. We have not then been able to establish with certainty how long the resident was reporting the problem from the available records. While true, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time. This is usually within 12 months from the date a resident became aware of a problem. Not only does this ensure that evidence to investigate the complaint is available, but also so that effective steps can be taken to put things right. Considering the date the resident raised the complaint, and the availability of evidence, the investigation will therefore focus on the period from the resident’s report on 10 June 2021.
8. Investigations into statutory noise nuisance was handled by the landlord’s CPT which is part of its Environmental Health team. This is a service it provides in its capacity as a council and is available to all residents living in its borough. We cannot investigate the actions or decisions of the CPT because we can only look at complaints where a council is acting as the landlord under a social housing tenancy. As such, we have only investigated if and how the landlord interacted with the CPT about the resident’s reports.

What we have looked at

9. It is a condition of the tenancy agreement that residents must not behave in a way that causes a nuisance to others. The landlord’s ASB policy characterises the types of behaviours that it considers could cause a nuisance. This includes those the resident reported in both 2021 and 2022 of drug taking, littering, and noise nuisance from loud music and disturbances from household sounds at night. The policy distinguishes noise as those that may be from:
   1. a statutory noise, such as loud music and parties from neighbouring properties, which it said is usually investigated by its CPT.
   2. daily living, such as footfall, and reports from its social housing tenants are dealt with by the landlord.
10. Under its ASB policy the landlord was required to act within 5 working days of receiving a report which had been assessed as low risk. The records show that after both reports the landlord sent the neighbour a warning letter advising them of the consequences of potentially breaching their tenancy agreement. These were sent promptly, on 15 June 2021 and 15 November 2022, within its timescale.
11. Despite the landlord’s swift action both times, it has not provided evidence that it undertook any other actions that its ASB policy states it will take, such as:
    1. Agreeing an action plan and confirming it in writing with the resident.
    2. Completing a risk assessment.
    3. Investigating the report.
    4. Discussing the likely outcome of various forms of action with the resident.
    5. Liaising with other partner agencies, such as the police.
12. The landlord has not then demonstrated that it followed its own policy, particularly in communicating with the resident. This means it cannot show its reason for taking the course of action it did on the 2 occasions referred to. While true, the ASB policy states that the landlord will try to resolve problems initially with non-legal interventions such as providing advice and offering mediation. This approach to low-level ASB reports is in line with best practice in social housing. And the records suggest that the tenancy warning had been effective in the past because there were 16 months between the resident’s reports. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to attempt the same method it had used before, at least initially.
13. The stage 1 response from January 2023 did also provide some information about what it had done and why. This was that it had not found that video recordings the resident provided met the threshold to be considered a nuisance. The landlord also agreed to work with the CPT, which is one of its partner agencies its policy states it works with to help resolve noise and ASB in its properties.
14. Though the landlord took some reasonable actions, its lack of demonstrable engagement with the resident, such as completing a risk assessment, means it has not shown it sought to fully understand the problem or how it was affecting her. Had it done so it could have explored further ways to support and assist, such as advising about what type of evidence it needed to consider taking different actions. This is a failing that the landlord has not acknowledged.
15. Between mid-January and late March 2023, and in her escalation request, the resident was reporting more noise and ASB incidents from her neighbour more frequently. During this period, she emailed the landlord dozens of times. In these she often referred to how it was affecting her sleep and wellbeing. As explained, the landlord was required to under its policy assess the risk and respond within 5 working days. There is no record showing that the landlord acknowledged these (other than once) or acted on these reports until September 2023. This was when it supported the resident in making a witness statement to the police about incidents with the neighbour being verbally abusive. We are unable to establish if this is because the landlord was not following its policy or that it was but failed to record it. Either way, it is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate it was undertaking all the steps its ASB policy states it will take.
16. In its stage 2 response, from January 2024, the landlord advised it had been liaising with its partner agents, which is supported by the witness statement and other records from after this time. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. The landlord also advised that it was exploring taking legal action against the neighbour and explained it needed the witness statement to progress this. Again, it was in keeping with the tenancy agreement and its ASB policy for the landlord to consider taking enforcement action where it considered it had sufficient evidence of this. As such, it was not unreasonable that it took several months to reach this point, though we recognise how distressing this must have been for the resident.
17. While the landlord took some appropriate actions in between its responses, it has again not evidenced it was doing everything its ASB policy states it should do. This includes agreeing an action plan with the resident and keeping her updated on its progress and outcomes. Or assessing the risk of the reports. Risk assessments are important to determine how the landlord will act on a report but also to decide if there is support it can provide.
18. It has also not shown that it considered any solutions for the noise transference problem in any other way than sending a warning letter. Our Spotlight report on noise recommended that landlords have a separate good neighbourhood management policy for dealing with noise transference. While we have not seen that the landlord had one at the time, it would have been reasonable to explore if there were practical ways to resolve or mitigate the problem, such as inspecting the neighbour’s flooring.
19. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate it followed its own policies and communicate with the resident likely caused her additional distress and inconvenience over the 2-year period we investigated. Though we cannot see from the records she was always being affected during this time, the records show periods where the resident was making ASB reports daily or weekly. This was particularly the case in early 2023 and early 2024 when the issues with the neighbour appeared to intensify. The lack of records showing its actions and reasons for them also means the landlord cannot assure us it has taken all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s noise and ASB reports, in line with its policy. We have also seen no records of her being updated about any of its actions and decisions. So, we have ordered the landlord to put things right.
20. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation within the range (£100-£600) our remedies guidance recommends for adverse impacts experienced over a long time but are not expected to be permanent.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

21. The landlord’s complaints policy and 2-stage process at the time aligned with some of the timescales and standards of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It was required to log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
22. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 8 November 2022 within its timescale on 15 November 2022. It though did not meet its stage 1 timescale because it issued its response on 19 January 2023. This was 34 working days, which was significantly longer than its service standard. There is no record that the resident was updated or that it notified her that it needed more time. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to meet its timescale and has therefore not taken any steps to put things right.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 19 January 2023 to escalate her complaint within one working day on 20 January 2023, which was prompt. Despite this it did not respond until we asked it to on 20 December 2023, after the resident contacted us for assistance. This was a significant failing that led to the stage 2 response of 12 January 2024 taking over 220 working days longer than its published timescale. It delayed the resident being able to escalate her complaint to us for a final resolution. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failure, apologise, explain the reason, and award compensation for the impact. The amount it awarded was within the range (£50-£250) its compensation policy recommends for cases where its service failure has caused distress and inconvenience beyond a level that was reasonably acceptable.
24. Neither of the responses addressed the resident’s complaint that the issue with her neighbour had been ongoing for several years. This was not in keeping with the Code, which required all aspects to be addressed. For example, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain if it had decided not to investigate the full history because of the time that had elapsed.
25. In both her complaint and escalation, the resident referred to the impact the situation was having on her health, but neither response acknowledged this nor showed empathy. This was not in line with the landlord’s approach outlined in the policy to view all feedback as valuable and to be considerate.
26. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failure, apologise, and award compensation for the impact this caused. However, in view of the further failings identified, we have increased the compensation to reflect the overall impact in line with our remedy’s guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

27. Based on the records, the landlord did not appear to have a separate case management system for recording ASB cases. This may have contributed to some of the failures that occurred in this case, including its lack of demonstrable contact with the resident. We encourage the landlord to consider implementing a system if it has not already.