Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202333999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333999

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

26 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a long-term leaseholder of a studio flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the flat.
4. The resident first reported issues with ASB to the landlord on 16 July 2023. He told the landlord of an ongoing disturbance from his neighbour and the impact this was having. He said this had been happening over a 5 year period.
5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2023. He was unhappy as the disturbance had continued. The resident said his neighbour needed support as his mental health was deteriorating. The resident was also unhappy he had requested the landlord’s complaint process and it had not been provided.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2023. In the response, it:
   1. Explained the history of the matter. The neighbour had been previously sectioned after his mental health deteriorated. He came back to his flat in February 2023. The landlord had been monitoring the situation and it had appeared to have improved.
   2. Said it had established that the neighbour was unable to manage in his current property. It said it was liaising with other agencies to re-assess the neighbour for supported living.
   3. Acknowledged this was a difficult situation for the resident and said it was doing what it could. It explained it was dependent on the cooperation of other agencies to manage the situation.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 21 November 2023. He was unhappy as he believed no action had been taken since his stage 1 complaint. In this time, he said he had received no contact from the landlord and had contacted the police due to his neighbour’s behaviour.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023. In the response, it:
   1. Said it recognised the distress of hearing his neighbour shouting and screaming at all hours.
   2. Provided a more detailed history of the matter. The landlord believed the decline in the neighbour’s mental health was because his mental health nurse had left her post. After this, mental health services had not been providing any support.
   3. Said it had been contacting mental health services and a new mental health support worker had been appointed. The landlord said it was directly working with the support worker.
   4. Explained part of this work was to assist the neighbour in an application to transfer into sheltered/assisted accommodation. But this could take months to organise, and no outcome was guaranteed.
   5. Provided the contact information for the support worker.
   6. Said while it recognised the frustration of the resident, it was not upholding his complaint. The landlord believed it had acted appropriately given the sensitive nature of the matter.
9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 1 January 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He wanted his neighbour to be rehoused and he was concerned that the landlord had given no timeframe for this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident said the disturbance from the neighbour had been going on for 5 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the reports of ASB made by the resident at the time of the complaint.
11. After the complaints process ended, resident continued to speak with the landlord about  issues with his neighbour. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can contact the landlord to discuss making a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

12. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out what it will do tackle ASB and support those reporting ASB. It says:
    1. When ASB is reported, the landlord will complete a risk assessment to assess any vulnerability/safeguarding issues, and may make safeguarding referrals. A risk assessment should be repeated at regular intervals if an incident happens again or escalates.
    2. If the landlord decides to investigate it will contact the alleged perpetrator in 10 working days to arrange a visit to discuss the allegations. The landlord will use the visit to identify any vulnerabilities or safeguarding concerns. If there are any delays, the reporter will be informed.
    3. If the landlord identifies that a perpetrator of ASB has a mental health condition or other vulnerability, it will offer them support.
    4. A personalised support plan will be created for those experiencing ASB and every effort will be made to support them.
    5. The landlord will agree to regularly update the reporter of ASB. Updates should take place at least every two weeks.
    6. Reporters of ASB should be referred to specialist agencies where required.
    7. There is a graded system for its timescales when dealing with reports of ASB. The reporter should be contacted and a risk assessment made within 1 working day. An action plan should be agreed within 5 working days. If assessed at grade 2, a visit will be offered within 3 working days.
13. The resident first reported issues with ASB on 16 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports and arranged a meeting on 22 August 2023. Arranging a face-to-face meeting to understand the impact on the resident was a reasonable action by the landlord. However, it took over a month for this to take place. Given the timescales quoted in the landlord’s policy, it should have spoken to the resident about his concerns earlier. The landlord did not act appropriately here.
14. The landlord did not conduct a risk assessment after the resident’s reports. There also isn’t any evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment during the complaint period. The landlord did not record a reason why it did not conduct a risk assessment. The resident was reporting an escalation of the neighbour’s behaviour. It would’ve been appropriate and in line with its policy to conduct a risk assessment after his reports. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy in this instance.
15. We have not been provided with evidence that an action plan or a support plan was agreed with the resident. This did not take place after the resident’s initial report or after the meeting with the resident. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy on agreeing an action plan or a support plan.
16. However, the landlord did try to support the resident and referred him to appropriate services throughout the complaint. After the face-to-face meeting it continued to encourage the resident to make reports to it. It informed the resident to contact the Police if he felt in immediate danger. The landlord acted reasonably telling the resident when to report something to it or another service.
17. The landlord started to coordinate a response to the ASB concerns on 24 August 2023 and try to find out who the neighbour’s social worker was. It informed the resident that it had made referrals to the appropriate agencies. However, there is no direct evidence that it made these referrals. This is a record keeping failure of the landlord and means it cannot demonstrate that it was following its ASB policy in this instance.
18. We have not been provided with the evidence that the landlord tried to contact the neighbour about the allegations of ASB. There is evidence the landlord tried to contact the neighbour’s social worker. However, the emails are undated so it cannot be definitively said it was in this period. The landlord updated the resident to explain that it was trying to coordinate a response due to the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. It was reasonable the landlord tried to do this before contacting the neighbour about the allegations. It kept the resident updated. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to be taking in the circumstances.
19. The resident submitted his stage 1 complaint on 23 October 2023. Between the face-to-face meeting and the stage 1 complaint, he emailed the landlord to report ASB or to ask for an update 7 times. Initially the landlord kept the resident updated within its two-week timeframes. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
20. However, there was a period of around 3 weeks where the resident was waiting for an update. In this period, the landlord also offered the resident a meeting. It then did not respond to the resident when he gave his availability. The delay in an update was a shortcoming. However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to offer a meeting and then not follow up with the resident about it.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident the neighbour was unable to manage in the property. It said it was liaising with relevant agencies to assist in moving the neighbour to supported living. We have not been provided evidence that the landlord was liaising with these agencies before the resident’s stage 1 complaint. There is evidence of the landlord trying to reach out to other services, but these emails are undated. This is a record keeping failure from the landlord and means it cannot demonstrate the actions it took in this case.
22. The landlord also offered to provide any additional support to the resident while the situation was ongoing. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and shows it was trying to support the resident throughout the reports of ASB.
23. The landlord updated the resident on 22 November 2023. This was a little over 2 weeks from its stage 1 response. The landlord offered to refer the resident to victim support. The timescale is a shortcoming given the timescales in its policy, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to support the resident in this referral.
24. In the same email, the landlord informed the resident that the situation had been referred to a Joint Action Group. The evidence shows the landlord doing this. It told the resident it was not in a position to assess whether the neighbour’s accommodation was suitable for them. It is reasonable that it would need to coordinate with other specialist services for their opinion on this. In our view, this was a reasonable and proportionate position for the landlord to take. It was appropriate of the landlord and in line with its policy of handling reports of ASB when vulnerable individuals are involved.
25. The landlord was also in direct communication with mental health services in this period. The evidence shows it tried to coordinate a response with mental health services. This is appropriate of the landlord and in line with its ASB policy when it comes to vulnerable individuals.
26. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023 and explained the actions it had been taking. It provided the email address of the neighbour’s mental health support worker so the resident could contact them directly. This was a reasonable step for the landlord and shows it trying to support the resident throughout the complaint.
27. To conclude, this is a case where the vulnerabilities of the neighbour did have an impact on the actions that the landlord could reasonably take. It was appropriate and in line with its policy for the landlord to try and coordinate a response with other agencies because of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. The landlord also acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy when keeping the resident updated on what was happening in the case.
28. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it followed what it set out in its ASB policy. There is no evidence that it:
    1. Agreed an action plan or support plan with the resident.
    2. Conducted a risk assessment.
    3. Contacted the neighbour about the reports of ASB.
29. These are failures from the landlord. Though, if it had completed these actions, it would not have changed the impact on the resident. The landlord did still support the resident throughout the process, which is part of the purpose of a support plan. There is a period of time where the landlord cannot demonstrate that it was liaising with other agencies. This is a failing. The landlord was dependent on the actions of other services to assist in dealing with the neighbour. It should have been able to demonstrate that it has been liaising with these services. With all the facts considered, we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
30. The landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level of compensation is £100. This recognises the failure of the landlord to follow its own policy on ASB. The resident was not aware of a plan for the ASB or himself and this caused distress and inconvenience. But, this amount takes into consideration that if the policy was followed it would not have changed the impact the ASB was having on the resident. The impact of not following the ASB policy on the resident was minor in this instance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

31. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a stage 1 complaint response should be sent to a resident in 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 20 working days of the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2. The complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action”.
32. The landlord sent both of its complaint responses within its timescales. The stage 1 response was sent in 9 working days. The stage 2 response was sent in 19 working days. The landlord followed its own policy here.
33. The resident repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord about the standard of service it was providing. He mentioned starting legal proceedings in an email of 30 August 2023 and said he intended to raise a formal complaint on 5 September 2023. These emails fit the definition of a complaint from the landlord’s complaints policy. It is a failure from the landlord that it did not register these communications as a formal complaint.
34. The resident asked for the landlord’s complaint policy on 3 October 2023. The landlord did not provide the resident with the complaint policy or register the resident’s complaint at this time. It is a further failure that the landlord did not set up a complaint for the resident at this point.
35. To conclude, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and the complaint escalation on time. However, it should have registered the resident’s complaint earlier. The resident sent a variety of emails that expressed dissatisfaction that were more than a service request. We therefore find service failure with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
36. The landlord should apologise to the resident for not logging his complaint sooner. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level of compensation is £75. This recognises the delay in logging the resident’s complaint. However, beyond the delay being frustrating, it had a minor impact on the resident.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the way it handled his reports of ASB.
    2. Paid the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
    4. Written to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the handling of his complaint.