From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202321818)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321818

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat where she lives with her 2 children. The landlord, a local authority, is aware of her vulnerabilities as well as mental health challenges affecting her and one of the children.
  2. The resident first began to make reports about her neighbour in August 2022. Her initial requests were for it to move the gate to the communal area as disputes centred around access, the focus later switched to rehousing as a solution. From May 2023 she began to stay with family. She said this was because of the impact the situation was having on her and her son’s health.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2023. She did not get a response and submitted a second complaint on 3 August 2023. We have not been provided with a copy of either complaint. The response to the second complaint indicates that the neighbour had been bullying and harassing her for over a year and that it had failed to take any action.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to both complaints on 3 November 2023, it apologised for the delay responding. It said the neighbour had made counter allegations. It asked for further incidents to be reported to itself and the police. It was looking at options for potential rehousing and promised to be proactive with communication moving forwards.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 1 December 2023. She was unhappy with the time taken to respond and felt that delays in dealing with the ASB reports had allowed the situation to escalate. She was unhappy with the communication, inaction and lack of updates and felt it had not considered the family’s vulnerabilities.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident of 28 December 2023, it accepted there were delays but stated its actions were timely. It admitted to shortcomings in the process of dealing with the ASB, but that this had caused no detriment to the case. It said it offered temporary accommodation, but the resident declined its offer. It gave her an update on other housing options. It outlined a plan to deal with worries surrounding poor communication moving forwards.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with its response. She said her health was deteriorating due to the ASB and she was staying away from the property.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the situation had caused stress and anxiety which affected her and her son’s mental health and health conditions.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint would be better dealt with by the court. We can however, consider any distress or inconvenience caused because of any failings by the landlord.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has therefore relied on the available evidence.
  2. ASB case management is an important aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships. Keeping accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 August 2022 advising her that it had written to the neighbour warning of the consequences of verbally threatening behaviour. It recommended the resident raise her concerns with the neighbour directly as a first step. We do not know when she reported the ASB or if she took this advice. It was proportionate to suggest this solution in line with its ASB information booklet to tenants. Due to the nature of the reports, at this point it should have considered issuing an action plan as stated in its ASB booklet. Having a clear plan with regular updates set out could have helped manage expectations.
  4. In March and April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the ASB had escalated. She requested that the gate and fence be moved to resolve the matter. She detailed that the neighbour had been:
    1. Using the communal area as an extension of her garden.
    2. Preventing access via the communal area.
    3. Causing noise nuisance.
    4. Making verbal and physical threats to her and workers for the landlord.
  5. There is no evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident or took any action for over a month following this report. This was contrary to the provisions of the booklet which says that it will acknowledge reports of ASB within 5 working days of receipt.
  6. The neighbour made counter allegations against the resident and the landlord also witnessed noise from her property. Evidence suggests that she was issued with a notice of potential court action. Police investigated reports from both parties but took no action as they could not conclude who the aggressor was. In such instances it would be reasonable for the landlord to have considered an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) to set expectations for both parties.
  7. The landlord attended the property on 20 April 2023 and offered the resident mediation. She declined as she did not want to interact with the neighbour. This is understandable given reported threats of violence. There is no evidence that it explained the mediation process or clarified direct interaction would not be needed as set out in its ASB booklet. We consider mediation to be an appropriate option in these circumstances, allowing the parties to be made aware of each other’s concerns and be more open to altering patterns of behaviour. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered this.
  8. During the visit the landlord and resident discussed her request that it moved the gate and fence to prevent disputes over use and access of the communal area. This could have minimised the likelihood of further incidents, and may have been a reasonable step, however there was no obligation for it to do this. Furthermore, the issues between the neighbours included more than the rear garden access and use.
  9. The resident chose to leave the property and stay with family stating that she felt unsafe and wanted the landlord to rehouse her. The landlord considered options including:
    1. Temporary accommodation.
    2. A direct move.
    3. Mutual exchange to another property.
  10. The landlord considered the resident’s request to move and acted appropriately by looking at all available options. There was no obligation to do so considering that there were counter allegations by the neighbour and no strong evidence of significant ASB pointing to either as the perpetrator.
  11. In May 2023, the landlord supported the resident with making a housing application to the local authority housing allocations team, so that she could bid for properties. It also assisted her with looking for mutual exchange options. It advised it would need a supporting letter from a senior police detective to consider temporary accommodation and a direct move. The police did tell the landlord it would be in support of a move, however this information did not come from a senior detective and it did not accept this. It is positive that the landlord was proactive in helping the resident explore options for moving.
  12. The landlord sent another warning letter to the resident’s neighbour in July 2023 following further reports of an attack when she went to the property. It advised the resident to continue to report ASB to it and the police. This was appropriate action given the escalation of the ASB which now included physical assault. Best practice would have been for the landlord to have issued the parties diary sheets to keep a written record of incidents from the initial reports. This could have enabled it to better assess the situation and take proper and timely action.
  13. On 28 July 2023, the resident’s friend contacted the landlord chasing a call back, there is no record this took place. She reported a further incident of ASB on 23 August 2023 and had to chase twice for a reply. She wrote to the landlord again on 26 September 2023 stating that she had previously and frequently informed it that the neighbour had installed cameras overlooking her property. It had taken no action and had not responded to her communications. In its response of the same day the landlord reiterated the following points:
    1. They need a letter from the police to support a move.
    2. They have contacted the neighbour about appropriate behaviour.
    3. It is looking for a mutual exchange.
  14. Following this, the resident’s mother wrote to the landlord in October 2023 about a warning which it had issued the resident. This was due to a further counter allegation by the neighbour about noise from her property. Her mother stated that she had been away at the time.
  15. On 10 October 2023, the landlord says that it wrote to the neighbour asking them not to contact or interact with the resident. Based on evidence, this is the third warning letter.
  16. The landlord’s 2 stage 1 responses to the resident of 3 November 2023 confirmed it had taken the following actions:
    1. It had been in touch with the resident to address her concerns and clarify the actions taken. It also discussed the counter allegations with her.
    2. It had been working with the police regarding the allegations, and they have confirmed that no action was being taken against either party.
    3. A letter supporting a priority move had been received from the police. As this was not from a senior detective it was deemed unacceptable.
    4. It was actively seeking mutual exchange options.
  17. The landlord also advised the resident in its response that the neighbour had been warned to leave the side gate alone and not obstruct the resident’s cameras. It asked the resident to do the same and continue to report any incidents to itself and the police. It advised that her case was being presented to the local authority housing allocations team to consider priority in the absence of police support.
  18. While the landlord had taken action which would have been helpful in this situation, there was still no clear plan in place as to how it would manage the ongoing reports of ASB. This is unacceptable and would have left her unclear on the next steps.
  19. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in responding. It admitted communication with the resident could have been better and said it will be proactive with this moving forwards. Although positive it does not explain how communication will be managed or the steps that can be taken should poor communication continue.
  20. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 December 2023, it addressed the following points:
    1. It accepted there were delays acting when the ASB was first reported but states they have since taken action to rectify this, including visiting the resident at her mum’s house, discussing options to rehouse her, issued warnings to the neighbour and liaised with the police.
    2. It admitted no diary sheets or action plan were issued but stated reports and actions had been discussed. It could not see this caused detriment to the case.
    3. It admitted there had been occasions where the resident had to chase for a response and agreed it could have kept her better informed.
    4. It confirmed that incidents including alleged harassment and noise nuisance had been raised with the neighbour.
    5. It advised the local authority housing allocations team awarded her priority status for rehousing.
  21. The landlord had again apologised to the resident that communication had been poor and told her if it failed to respond within 5 working days, she could speak with a team leader. This time scale is in line with its ASB booklet and gives the resident a channel to escalate should it fail to comply.
  22. The landlord’s response does not address the failure to consider vulnerabilities. Furthermore, in line with the national guidelines it should have completed a risk assessment early in the process. This would have provided a picture of the potential impact and along with an action plan could have outlined a clear pathway to address the ASB.
  23. We conclude that the landlord’s actions to resolve the matter were inadequate. It focused on rehousing the resident which was a positive action, however, it failed to make use of standard ASB tools such as risk assessments, action plans and ABAs as detailed in its own booklet and national guidance. Next steps at each stage were unclear, and it did not provide updates. There is now a plan in place to address the communication issues, but there was no plan included as to how it would deal with any further reports of ASB.
  24. We have identified failings by the landlord and have ordered an amount in compensation within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident. We recognise that in cases like this where there are counter allegations, it is fair for the landlord to investigate the report by each resident. In this case the evidence indicates that it was not always clear who was the victim. The police communications emphasised this complexity. This mitigates the landlord’s failings and we have considered it in our decision and order of compensation to the resident.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if it cannot respond within these timescales, it will inform the resident of the progress of their complaint and when to expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to its complaint handling. This has affected our ability to effectively assess the timeline of events and suggests a record keeping failure. Clear record keeping ensures that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for investigation. It is important the landlord considers measures it should take with respect to effective information management.
  3. The resident told us that she complained to the landlord on 3 August 2023. We contacted the landlord on 1 November 2023 and asked it to provide its complaint response by 15 November 2023.
  4. The landlord complied with our request by providing 2 stage 1 responses on 3 November 2023, each of which addressed a separate complaint by the resident. Although one was made on 15 May 2023 and the other on 3 August 2023, they were both about her ASB reports and with respect to the same neighbour. It would have been more reasonable for the landlord to collate the key points of each complaint if there was any difference and provide a singular stage 1 decision. Although the provision of a decision for each complaint letter may have been to ensure a complete response, its approach of treating them as separate matters was confusing.
  5. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay which was almost 6 and 3 months after the complaints were made. This falls significantly outside of the timescales set out within its policy. It offered no redress for these delays.
  6. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 1 December 2023. The landlord provided a response 17 working days later. This was in line with its policy.
  7. Overall, we find that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process. We have therefore made an order for compensation in line with our remedies guidance and recommendations for improvement in its complaint handling practices.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the sum of £200 within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance. This sum should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe to the landlord. It is broken down as follows:
    1. Compensation of £100 for the delays and failures in dealing with the ASB reports.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience for its failures and delay in responding to the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Reviews its training needs for staff who deal with reports of ASB.
    2. Arranges for staff who deal with complaints to access our learning hub and complete the e-learning modules on complaint handling.